(Gen. 9:24-27) Prophecy: Shem, Ham, and Japheth

[APAK]

I just gave your Scripture that showed Ham and his three sons were cursed by Noah. At the least you must admit that to Ham no blessing was given. Shem and Japheth were blessed.

As to the curse not being valid because it was from Noah and not God, how foolish a statement. Was Isaac's blessing upon Jacob from God or not? Did God honor the blessing or not? (Gen. 27:33) How about Jacob's blessing upon Ephraim? Was that honored by God or not? How about Jacob's prophecies concerning each tribe of Israel? Is that just sweet Hebraic literature to be admired by the intellect. Or will that and does that have true implications for each tribe? And on and on one could go over men of God giving prophecies from God. Noah gave the curse because it was from God as was the blessing.

Arthur Custance is not alone in recognizing the curse upon Ham. Henry Morris writes, "Noah's prophetic words were directed first toward Ham (in the person of his son Canaan)...." He goes on to say, "Finally, it was the sin of Ham (not Canaan) that had served as the occasion for his father's curse, and it would have been inappropriate for Noah thus to single out only one of Ham's four sons as bearing the burden of the curse. Therefore, it seems necessary to understand this as a Hamitic, rather than Canaanitic, curse, with Canaan mentioned specifically in order to stress that the terms of the prophecy extended to all of Ham's sons,even his youngest. " (The Genesis Record, Henry M. Morris, Baker, 1995, p.237-238)


The curse upon Ham is not to be viewed from the condition of each individual nation. It is viewed from the people of Ham as a whole. Just like the blessing of Shem and Japheth are viewed as their people as a whole. Even though some Hamitic nation somewhere does not appear to be feeling the affect of the curse, they are still under the curse. Though some Jews somewhere are being persecuted, they still are under the blessing of Shem. Same with Japheth.

Stranger

Well you are still forcing a theory down someones throat, forcing a few misplaced verses to fit this theory that a curse by the son is reflected on the Father and even other members of the family. It was enough that the curse was placed of Ham's son for Ham to become a traveler and not to stay with the family. If there was a curse it was that he became isolated and left his Father's presence.

Let's see the scripture you gave me again. Yes the 1 Samuel 17 is all about the Father of David wanting recognition for his Sons defeat of Goliath, the giant. Yes may believe this is proof of the blessing of the Father by the Son. Not so; notice that the Father forces the issue that be must be blessed as other men did not recognize his relationship to David or visa versa. God really blessed David and not necessarily his Father.

Now for Exodus 20:5....visiting the iniquities of the Father etc....3rd and 4th generations. Iniquities and curses are no the samw thing period. And besides, this curse over Canaan lasted much longer the 4 generations.....

If you insist on believing iniquities are the same as curses, here's a verse you can digest and remember...
(Eze 18:20) The soul who sins, he shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.

These are not curses, they are iniquities, sins infractions that COULD be causes by a curse. You have made them have the same meaning.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[Stranger]

Well you are still forcing a theory down someones throat, forcing a few misplaced verses to fit this theory that a curse by the son is reflected on the Father and even other members of the family. It was enough that the curse was placed of Ham's son for Ham to become a traveler and not to stay with the family. If there was a curse it was that he became isolated and left his Father's presence.

Let's see the scripture you gave me again. Yes the 1 Samuel 17 is all about the Father of David wanting recognition for his Sons defeat of Goliath, the giant. Yes may believe this is proof of the blessing of the Father by the Son. Not so; notice that the Father forces the issue that be must be blessed as other men did not recognize his relationship to David or visa versa. God really blessed David and not necessarily his Father.

Now for Exodus 20:5....visiting the iniquities of the Father etc....3rd and 4th generations. Iniquities and curses are no the samw thing period. And besides, this curse over Canaan lasted much longer the 4 generations.....

If you insist on believing iniquities are the same as curses, here's a verse you can digest and remember...
(Eze 18:20) The soul who sins, he shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.

These are not curses, they are iniquities, sins infractions that COULD be causes by a curse. You have made them have the same meaning.

Bless you,

APAK

No verses were misplaced, and no one is forcing anything. More wordsmith manipulation. You need to pay more attention. It is not a curse by a son to reflect upon the father. It is a curse by the grandfather (Noah) upon a grandson (Canaan) so as not to reflect upon the grandfather (Noah). But it does reflect upon the father (Ham). This is the importance of (Gen. 9:22) when we are told, that Ham is the father of Canaan. The curse would go to Ham.

Concerning David's father Jesse, he was not seeking any recognition. And the verses given were not about blessing or cursing in any way. It was about the truth that the sons actions reflect upon the father and that the father is to be recognized and credited or discredited with those actions. Blessing and curse follow the same path.

The curse was not to just Canaan. It was to Ham and all his descendants.

(Eze. 18:20) does not remove the curse upon Ham. You seem to forget, that Ham was the guilty party, not Canaan. It is Noah who placed the curse upon Canaan instead of upon Ham. And in so doing brought the curse upon Ham and all his descendants.

Do you think God was racist in Christianizing Europe but not Asia or Africa? Was God racist for Christianizing Japheth but not Ham? (Acts 16:6-10) And the blessing that continues with Shem, with Christ, and upon Israel, is God racist for observing the blessings pronounced upon Shem?

Or...have you already cut those Scriptures out of your politically correct Bible?

Stranger

 

[APAK]

@Stranger:

I see your mantra belief is alive and kicking as you keep saying it in these latest words that, “Blessing and curse follow the same path (whatever that means! – my words). The curse was not to just Canaan. It was to Ham and all his descendants.” Not true at all!

You have no proof only conjecture again. If I find some proof to your story don’t you think I would agree with you? I don’t like forcing pieces of scripture with many opinions to substantiate a theory or claim.

And you are really trying to force this theory of an active Shem and Japheth Blessing over a fictitious ALL Ham curse thing, and then to what end?

From your previous to last post:

Let’s see how foolish I was to dare and say that only a man placed a curse on another Father’s son and not to offend YHWH as he already blessed this Father. And you basically came back and said, that because the Father never received a blessing from his Father (Noah) then he was (Had to be) cursed.

They you are bold to say I’m foolish with my words, as you use Isaac’s blessing on Jacob as an example of my foolishness and maybe ignorance.

Notice in your example, the similarity of the blessing of sons by a Father as Noah gave to Shem and Japheth and the blessing to Jacob by Isaac. Do you then believe that Isaac cursed Esau because he never received the birthright/ 1st born blessing? You must, because you already said that Ham never received a blessing therefore, he was cursed (and because he sinned of course). Then so too Esau, right?


But Esau was blessed, indeed by Issac his Father!

(Gen 27:39) Isaac his father answered him, Behold, of the fatness of the earth will be your dwelling, and of the dew of the sky from above.

You know though that Esau became cursed, soon afterwards? And not by any man placing a curse on him.

Was not Isaac and his kin Esau and Jacob, part of Shem that was BLESSED not cursed from the beginning, by a Man AND YHWH? Why then did his son Esau succumb and become part of the curse of Canaan by marrying a Hittite? I guess blessings and curses can cohabitate at one time by the same peoples? Or blessings can be forgotten and become curses? Both are not permanent and dedicated to just to ONE TIME and ONE SET of peoples. Once blessed one day can be cursed the next you know….it happened to Shem and Japheth and their descendants. You knew that already, I guess?


And I see you still are stuck on Gen 9:22 because HAM made iniquity and so HE HAD TO BE CURSED according to you….that’s where I will leave this discussion for now….not going any place I’m afraid.



Bless you,


APAK

 

[Stranger]

@Stranger:

I see your mantra belief is alive and kicking as you keep saying it in these latest words that, “Blessing and curse follow the same path (whatever that means! – my words). The curse was not to just Canaan. It was to Ham and all his descendants.” Not true at all!

You have no proof only conjecture again. If I find some proof to your story don’t you think I would agree with you? I don’t like forcing pieces of scripture with many opinions to substantiate a theory or claim.

And you are really trying to force this theory of an active Shem and Japheth Blessing over a fictitious ALL Ham curse thing, and then to what end?

From your previous to last post:

Let’s see how foolish I was to dare and say that only a man placed a curse on another Father’s son and not to offend YHWH as he already blessed this Father. And you basically came back and said, that because the Father never received a blessing from his Father (Noah) then he was (Had to be) cursed.

They you are bold to say I’m foolish with my words, as you use Isaac’s blessing on Jacob as an example of my foolishness and maybe ignorance.

Notice in your example, the similarity of the blessing of sons by a Father as Noah gave to Shem and Japheth and the blessing to Jacob by Isaac. Do you then believe that Isaac cursed Esau because he never received the birthright/ 1st born blessing? You must, because you already said that Ham never received a blessing therefore, he was cursed (and because he sinned of course). Then so too Esau, right?


But Esau was blessed, indeed by Issac his Father!

(Gen 27:39) Isaac his father answered him, Behold, of the fatness of the earth will be your dwelling, and of the dew of the sky from above.

You know though that Esau became cursed, soon afterwards? And not by any man placing a curse on him.

Was not Isaac and his kin Esau and Jacob, part of Shem that was BLESSED not cursed from the beginning, by a Man AND YHWH? Why then did his son Esau succumb and become part of the curse of Canaan by marrying a Hittite? I guess blessings and curses can cohabitate at one time by the same peoples? Or blessings can be forgotten and become curses? Both are not permanent and dedicated to just to ONE TIME and ONE SET of peoples. Once blessed one day can be cursed the next you know….it happened to Shem and Japheth and their descendants. You knew that already, I guess?


And I see you still are stuck on Gen 9:22 because HAM made iniquity and so HE HAD TO BE CURSED according to you….that’s where I will leave this discussion for now….not going any place I’m afraid.



Bless you,


APAK

Actually I gave you Scriptural proof. Supported it with others testimony. And I explained your wrong use of Scripture which you try and use against the blessing and curse from Noah. Just like your now wrong use of (Gen. 27:39) You had said earlier that Noah's blessing and curses were no good because God didn't give it. A man, Noah, did.

I then showed you how the prophetic blessings or curses are from God and used Isaac, and Jacob as an example. Now you say that example is no good because Esau did receive a blessing from Isaac. First of all, are you now saying that though a man's blessing or curse is given, that it is God who honors it as with Noah? Second of all, the blessing Esau got was not the blessing of the birthright. That was to Jacob. And God honored it. So yes, your claim, that because it was by man means God did not give it, is foolish.

And again the verses you use do nothing to disprove the blessing and curse given by Noah.

Yes, (Gen. 9:22) supports the curse being upon all of the Hamitic race. What other reason is there to state that Ham is the father of Canaan.

Why did God Christianize Europe/Japheth? Does that anger you? Is God a racist? Why is Africa/Ham a dark continent today?

That's fine. When you come up with something of substance let me know.

Stranger

 

[JohnPaul]

I always took it that when Ham knew his father’s nakedness that he took advantage of his father when he was drunk, like in a homosexual way, and in turn Ham was cursed and all his descendants were cursed to be black and slaves, that’s where blacks came from and came to be.

 

[Stranger]

I always took it that when Ham knew his father’s nakedness that he took advantage of his father when he was drunk, like in a homosexual way, and in turn Ham was cursed and all his descendants were cursed to be black and slaves, that’s where blacks came from and came to be.

Yes, I have heard that but as others have said, it doesn't seem possible that Ham would go tell his brothers of such a deed. I think it is as it says, that Ham saw his father's nakedness and instead of covering him and keeping his mouth shut, went and told everyone. (Gen. 9:22) And so Shem and Japheth did the right thing and did not look on their father's nakedness and walked backward with a blanket and covered him. (9:23)

See (Pro. 17:9) "He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends."

Yes, Ham did come under the curse, the negro's were part of that as they are from Ham. But Ham involves all the darkskinned people who are not of Shem, not just the negro's. It is said that Shem and Japheth's origins are easier to determine than all of Ham's. And so all others are attributed to Ham.

I found on the internet an article by S. Lewis Johnson called, 'Prophecy of Noah and Race Question'. He made some interesting points that I will give here.

First is the uniqueness of the person of Noah. Due to the longevity of those who lived before the flood, he would have, or could have known Seth. (Gen. 4:26) The same with Enoch who was translated. (Gen. 5:22) And the same also with Methuselah. (5:27)

Second is the parallel between Adam and Noah. Both endured a fall. Due to their fall, a Messianic prophecy was given. Both were commanded to 'fill' or 'replenish' the earth. Both sinned in connection with fruit. Both became naked in their sin. Both were provided covering from another.

Stranger

 

[JohnPaul]

Yes, I have heard that but as others have said, it doesn't seem possible that Ham would go tell his brothers of such a deed. I think it is as it says, that Ham saw his father's nakedness and instead of covering him and keeping his mouth shut, went and told everyone. (Gen. 9:22) And so Shem and Japheth did the right thing and did not look on their father's nakedness and walked backward with a blanket and covered him. (9:23)

See (Pro. 17:9) "He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends."

Yes, Ham did come under the curse, the negro's were part of that as they are from Ham. But Ham involves all the darkskinned people who are not of Shem, not just the negro's. It is said that Shem and Japheth's origins are easier to determine than all of Ham's. And so all others are attributed to Ham.

I found on the internet an article by S. Lewis Johnson called, 'Prophecy of Noah and Race Question'. He made some interesting points that I will give here.

First is the uniqueness of the person of Noah. Due to the longevity of those who lived before the flood, he would have, or could have known Seth. (Gen. 4:26) The same with Enoch who was translated. (Gen. 5:22) And the same also with Methuselah. (5:27)



Second is the parallel between Adam and Noah. Both endured a fall. Due to their fall, a Messianic prophecy was given. Both were commanded to 'fill' or 'replenish' the earth. Both sinned in connection with fruit. Both became naked in their sin. Both were provided covering from another.

Stranger

Thank you for answering Stranger, I always took it as a homosexual act on his own father, even if it wasn't and he committed incest with his mother and she bore his child, you have to ask yourself, what the hell was wrong with Ham and his mother, how could he even attempt something like that and she allow it?

If you say he only saw his father naked, I don't think he would've been cursed just for that, especially if he just walked in on his father while he was drunk, it has to be more, I think the homosexual act is more probable or the incest act with his mother, sick stuff.

By dark skinned people what do you mean by that, Indians, Italians? Please explain.

 

[Stranger]

Thank you for answering Stranger, I always took it as a homosexual act on his own father, even if it wasn't and he committed incest with his mother and she bore his child, you have to ask yourself, what the hell was wrong with Ham and his mother, how could he even attempt something like that and she allow it?

If you say he only saw his father naked, I don't think he would've been cursed just for that, especially if he just walked in on his father while he was drunk, it has to be more, I think the homosexual act is more probable or the incest act with his mother, sick stuff.

By dark skinned people what do you mean by that, Indians, Italians? Please explain.

You can take it anyway you like. I have already explained why I think you are wrong.

Go back and reread.

Stranger

 

[JohnPaul]

You can take it anyway you like. I have already explained why I think you are wrong.

Go back and reread.

Stranger

Ok Stranger, sorry for bothering you.

 

[Stranger]

Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Blessing and curse.

Many explanations are given as to what the blessing and curse really were and how they are played out. But whatever the explanation, you can't get away from the fact that one is a blessing and one is a curse. Nor can you get away from the fact that the curse is intended to place Ham's descendants as servant to both Shem's and Japheths's.

Before everyone jumps up and plays the Hitler, and KKK, and racist card, just follow along for awhile. Even within the tribes of Israel, God made distinction in the tribes of the role they would play in Israel. And to some was given more than others. Concerning Joseph, Jacob said of the blessings, (Gen. 48:22) "Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren....).

And unto Reuben who was the firstborn, blessing was taken away. (Gen. 49:4) "Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it:....)

And unto Simeon and Levi they endured a curse. (Gen. 49:4-7) "...instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united....Cursed be their anger...I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel."

And to Issachar was given the role of servant. (Gen. 49:14-15) "Issachar is a strong ass couching down between two burdens: And he saw that rest was good, and the land it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute.

So, just as these characterizations will forever follow the various tribes of Israel, upon the earth, so will the characterizations given by Noah to his three sons, follow the various people who make up the population upon the earth. No matter how much some disagree, or try to overide them, they will always be true because God has so made it.

Henry Morris says "Mankind thus had three fundamental types of duties to perform as God's steward over the world: (1) spiritual---receiving, preserving, and teaching the knowledge of the word of God; (2) intellectual--expanding and teaching the knowledge of the world of God; and (3) physical--providing the material means for man's bodily needs and comforts...These three duties correspond, in fact, to the tripartite nature of man: spirit, soul, and body." (The Genesis Record, Baker, 1995, p. 239)

Morris goes on to show the correspondence of these three natures of man to Noah's sons. Shem is more characterized by the spirit. Japheth is more characterized by the soul or intellect. And Ham is more characterized by the body or physical. p. (240)

Now, understand that all three are servants or slaves to God in their responsibilities. But Ham is a servant to the servants of Shem and Japheth. This is what I believe the term 'servant of servants' speaks to in (Gen. 9:25).

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

What has been said thus far does not mean that the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, will only bear these specific characteristics. But as a race as a whole, this will always be their emphasis. As a race as a whole, it will describe them as mankind moves into the future. Nor does it mean that an individual cannot rise above that which characterizes his race and excel in another area.

Ham's descendants were brought under a curse to be servants to Shem and Japheth. Ham is more concerned with the physical and material aspects of man. Thus as Morris points out, he "...would be concerned more directly than the others with the ground which the Lord hath cursed." (Gen. 5:29) Therefore the "...the Hamitic responsibility was itself a 'curse'. (The Genesis Record, Henry Morris, Baker, 1995) p. (240)

The descendants of Ham created empires. Nimrod built Babel, Erech, and Accad, and Caineh, in the land of Shinar. (Gen. 10:6-10) But here again, the curse is present. For 'Shinar' is the base for wickedness. (Zechariah 5:5-11) And also the Egyptian and Sumerian empires were built by Ham.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

How about those 4 representative progressive democrats. Sons of Ham and haters of Israel. They have no blessing and are under the curse. This is why they represent third world peoples. They are antagonistic to Japheth the elder who is blessed with Shem. You just can't get away from those prophecies.

Stranger