Africa & the Bible: the myth of a cursed race

[HAZARD]

The colored race started since the flood of Noah and not with Cain as some teach because of Cains sin. This is clear from the fact that all of mankind was destroyed in Noah's flood and all the different races had to start then. In Acts 17:26 we are told that of one blood God made all nations of men to dwell upon the whole face of the Earth.

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" (Acts 17:26).

How this was brought about is clear from the fact that two nations came of Lot's two daughters (Gen. 19: 36-38),

"Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day." (Gen. 19:36-38), and two other nations came from Rebekah (Gen. 25:23).

"And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." (Gen. 25:23).

No one knows just when the first colored child was born and all speculation about this is valuless.

Haz.

[nebula]

It could be argued that people originally had darker skin. (How dark, I don't know.)

We white people have pretty much lost our color.

Or in anatomy speak, we lost most of our melanocytes (pigment-producing cells).

[Gauntlet]

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Incest is forbidden in the OT, is it not? To say nothing of impregnating one's daughters with one's own seed. Either Lot committed incest, or I am missing something here.

[nebula]

The daughters were responsible.

Genesis 19:30-38

[HAZARD]

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Incest is forbidden in the OT, is it not? To say nothing of impregnating one's daughters with one's own seed. Either Lot committed incest, or I am missing something here.

Its all in the Scriptures I quoted.

Lots daughters got him drunk and climed into bed with him and seduced him.

"And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Gen. 19:30-36).

Haz.

[Gauntlet]

Was Lot raped by his daughters?

[HAZARD]

Was Lot raped by his daughters?

Lot had no sons so his daughters said amongst themselves, ("let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Gen. 19:30-36)." Seduced in a drunken stupor would be more likely.

Haz.

[Celt]

God created ALL the races the way He wanted them to appear. Anything else is not the concept of His creation, but the theory of evolution. Think about it. Isn't it possible that many have missed something in His Word that supports His creation, and not the idea that all races 'evolved'? I think so.

In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26-27, there's a distinction between the word 'aadam' with the article and particle, and 'aadam' without the article and particle. With the article and particle (eth Ha aadam) means a specific man Adam, but 'aadam' by itself means mankind (i.e., the races). It's the same idea in the grammar of all languages. If we speak of 'this man' doing something, we know it means singular, a certain man. But if we speak of 'man' doing something, it means mankind in general. Gen.1:26-27 reveals God created a specific man Adam, and adam (mankind) on His 6th day.

In Deut.7:6, God said He created Israel to be a special people separate from all the nations; that He created Israel to be a holy people unto Himself. He wasn't knocking the nations of Gentiles with that, because Israel was to be caretaker of His Truth for the benefit of ALL peoples. That purpose is also shown in Gen.2 with the man Adam, since it's eth Ha aadam there again in Gen.2.

Canaan:

In Gen.6, we are told that Noah was "perfect in his generations". That means from the Hebrew he was not mixed with other races, so his specific race was pure. It is an important matter, because God showed in Deut.24 that one of mixed race was not to enter into the congregation of Israel to his tenth generation.

What does that mean for Noah's three sons, Ham, Japheth, and Shem? It means they also had to be the same race as Noah. Can't say Jewish, nor Hebrew, for the ones born where those titles came from weren't born yet.

The sin Ham did unto his father Noah was about incest, because the expression 'thy father's nakedness' means the nakedness of one's wife per Leviticus 18 & 20. Ham got his father Noah drunk, and then slept with his own mother, and the offspring result was Canaan. And again, Canaan had to have been of the same race as Ham, and thus Noah. The Biblically illiterate started the false idea that the Black race came out of Ham's sin long ago, but it's always been a very un-Biblical idea. Also, it was Noah that said 'cursed be Canaan', not God. That's why Canaan was Ham's son.

In today's northern Iraq, the Behistun Rock mountain carving still exists, showing the features of tribal chieftans bound together of the ten tribes of Israel after they were taken captive by the king of Assyria. Their features are Indo-European or Caucasian per that carving. Even the Assyrian Tablets show racial feature distinctions between Sargon the first and the race of people in ancient Sumer (later Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Iraq) which called theirselves the "blackheads". A metal mask of Sargon's facial features still exists in the British Museum, and he had what's called Semitic features.

Many scholars assume Ham was of the Black race when that's unBiblical too. Ham's name means 'hot', so no doubt that helped such interpretations, and also the fact that Ham became the father of the Cushites, Mizraim, Phut (Put). How strange is it that the Canaanite peoples were not necessarily Black, but the other nations of Ham generally were?

I believe the matter becomes easier once we realize the possibility that since God told Noah to bring two of all flesh on board the ark, that it meant two of each race of those God created on the sixth day also. Anything else would be the theory of evolution. It would explain how Ham and Japheth mixed with the other races to produce the races in the areas where they migrated to, with Shem only staying pure all the way back to the man Adam. Naturally, the evolutionists are going to be against this, along with those who have 'bought in' to the evolution concept.

[Guest shiloh357]

I believe the matter becomes easier once we realize the possibility that since God told Noah to bring two of all flesh on board the ark, that it meant two of each race of those God created on the sixth day also.

Can't buy that. What you are appear to be saying is that Noah also brought to of each race of Humans on the Ark and the Bible doesn't support that. 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were only eight people aboard the ark.

In Gen.6, we are told that Noah was "perfect in his generations". That means from the Hebrew he was not mixed with other races, so his specific race was pure.

Wrong. The word for "perfect" as used here is a moral term, not a physical one. The whole verse is talking about Noah being an just and blameless man. The word for "perfect" means blameless. The verse goes on to say that Noah walked with God.

It is an important matter, because God showed in Deut.24 that one of mixed race was not to enter into the congregation of Israel to his tenth generation.

No, it says one born of a forbidden union. It refers to a child born out of harlotry, or out adultery or other forbidden union.

God only forbade intermarriage as it pertained to those who worshipped other gods. In that manner the commandment would keep them pure. It was not with a view of racial "purity" of spiritual purity to keep idolatry out of the Land of Israel. Moses married a black woman and we have record of other interracial marriages in the Bible. If you want to really get technical, even Jesus had a mixed lineage.

In today's northern Iraq, the Behistun Rock mountain carving still exists, showing the features of tribal chieftans bound together of the ten tribes of Israel after they were taken captive by the king of Assyria. Their features are Indo-European or Caucasian per that carving.

You don't subscribe to the racist "British Israelism" garbage that holds that the white/caucasians are the "ten lost tribes" do you?

[Celt]

I believe the matter becomes easier once we realize the possibility that since God told Noah to bring two of all flesh on board the ark, that it meant two of each race of those God created on the sixth day also.

Can't buy that. What you are appear to be saying is that Noah also brought to of each race of Humans on the Ark and the Bible doesn't support that. 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were only eight people aboard the ark.

In Gen.6, we are told that Noah was "perfect in his generations". That means from the Hebrew he was not mixed with other races, so his specific race was pure.

Wrong. The word for "perfect" as used here is a moral term, not a physical one. The whole verse is talking about Noah being an just and blameless man. The word for "perfect" means blameless. The verse goes on to say that Noah walked with God.

It is an important matter, because God showed in Deut.24 that one of mixed race was not to enter into the congregation of Israel to his tenth generation.

No, it says one born of a forbidden union. It refers to a child born out of harlotry, or out adultery or other forbidden union.

God only forbade intermarriage as it pertained to those who worshipped other gods. In that manner the commandment would keep them pure. It was not with a view of racial "purity" of spiritual purity to keep idolatry out of the Land of Israel. Moses married a black woman and we have record of other interracial marriages in the Bible. If you want to really get technical, even Jesus had a mixed lineage.

In today's northern Iraq, the Behistun Rock mountain carving still exists, showing the features of tribal chieftans bound together of the ten tribes of Israel after they were taken captive by the king of Assyria. Their features are Indo-European or Caucasian per that carving.

You don't subscribe to the racist "British Israelism" garbage that holds that the white/caucasians are the "ten lost tribes" do you?

I'm aware of the 1 Peter 3:20 verse which says "eight souls" were saved by water. I'm also aware that somehow... the races survived the flood. And there's not one bit of evidence to support that today's races came about from some curse, or evolution. If there was such evidence, there'd be more races springing up than what there are today. Yet we cannot find a single shred of evidence to suggest that two parents of one race produce a totally different race. The reason no such evidence can be found is because God already created the races long ago, before the flood, and they are still with us today. That leaves only 2 possibilities for their survival through the flood of Noah. 1) either two of each race were also brought on the ark, along with the eight souls of Noah's family, or 2) the flood was only to a local area on earth, and not over the entire earth. The word translated to "earth" can also be translated to "land".

The word "perfect" in Noah being "perfect in his generations" of Gen.6:9 is the Hebrew word tamiym, a word ALSO used to describe a perfect unblemished animal for sacrifice (like Exo.12:5). Noah was both morally pure and also geneologically pure. In that Gen.6 chapter we are told the "sons of God" looked upon flesh daughters, and took WIVES, and begat children, the Nephilim (fallen ones), called "giants" there. So that Genesis 6 chapter has very much to do with the subject of geneaology. It is not simply a morality description. In Jude 1 we are told those angels didn't keep their first estate but left their own habitation. It was about co-habitating with flesh woman to produce offspring.

Excuse me, I mean Deut.23:2, which states that a "bastard" is not to enter into the congregation of The LORD to his tenth generation. That most definitely is about geneology. The Hebrew word is 'mamzer', which is pointing to one of mixed race.

Concerning the wife of Moses, many get that wrong too, for his father-in-law was a Midianite priest. Midian was one of the sons of Abraham and his later wife Keturah (Gen.25; Exo.2). So the wife of Moses was not of the Black race. That's a myth some try and use in support of racial intermarriage.

I see you're more concerned with an idea like "British-Israel" which I never mentioned, instead of checking out what I stated about the Behistun Rock carving in northern Iraq. Strange there's so much junk being pushed to support inter-racial marriages today by certain ones, when God's Word does not support it. In Leviticus 19:19 God showed that we aren't even to mix animals to make hybrids, so what makes some think it's OK to mix the races He originally created the way He wanted them to appear? It's really not that difficult to distinguish even here on this Forum those who are set on supporting theories of evolution instead of God's creation per His Word.