Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Jacob Webber, Jul 12, 2004.

  1. Jacob Webber

    Jacob Webber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where in the world did the teaching that the MArk of Cain was Cain being turned black or the Curse of Ham was Ham being turned black. This makes no sense to me because I have never read this in Scripture anywhere. And it has been proven that we are all of the same color of skin just different shades. I think it started in America thou I am not sure but can anyone pin point were this false teaching begain.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's cuz it ain't there. I've heard many making that supposition as well. It implies that being of darker skin is somehow a curse.

    It is impossible to tell from scripture whether it was some physical mark, or something else. We simply do not know. Perhaps it was a hopeless, pathetic look, something that would stir pity in any individual's heart, so that Cain became (as man is, basically, everywhere in his guilt), an object of universal pity to those who saw him. But the point of the story is not the nature of the mark. The point of the story is that every man, even the guilty man, is still God's. We tend to interpret it as a mark of shame. But its purpose is a reminder that we belong to God.
     
  3. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,929
    Likes Received:
    369
    It's just from some people trying to give credibility to their false beliefs.

    Noah cursed Ham, saying "a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers".

    The descendents of Ham went Southward, and are credited for establishing areas as South and Central Arabia, Egypt, and the East Coast of Africa. Egypt was called the “Land of Ham.” “Khen”, an Egyptian god, was the Egyptian equivalent of the Hebrew name “Ham”, and many feel Ham himself may have led settlers to Egypt. (Egypt was called “Mizraim”, the name of Ham’s son.

    So, while the African people may have been among Ham’s descendents, it’s not biblical to say that they have inherited Ham’s curse. People do not inherit the sins of their fathers.

    When I was younger I lived in Atlanta, and the KKK was big during that time. They’d demonstrate on the square in Marietta GA. This was some of the sources they used to promote their racist beliefs. These people were twisted, their beliefs were twisted, and they twisted the truth to meet their needs.
     
  4. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Noah did NOT curse Ham. He cursed Canaan. Read Genesis 9:25 again.

    Andy
     
  5. KeithS

    KeithS
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thought this was an interesting article:

    But what about the two cases before us, for these were arguably the most influential interpretations in his long history? What made him a Jew in the thirteenth century and a black in the nineteenth? Ham, the Jew, can be traced back to the City of God, the roughly early fifth century work of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Ham, the Black, starts to come to the fore in the sixteenth century, though anticipations of it can be traced back to ambiguous Christian and Jewish sources, as early, in some cases, as the third century, as well as to clearer ninth century Muslim texts. The particular Christian hermeneutic that allowed the Black Ham to emerge in Euro-America however only gained strength much later during the era of print, reformations, exploration and exploitation.

    See the full document here:

    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pQwE80jJ3AgJ:www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/rapl/word/braude02.doc+curse+ham+black&hl=en
     
  6. Jacob Webber

    Jacob Webber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is Cannaan that was cursed. But is was because of Ham's evil doing that the curse came on Canaan. God could have cursed Ham's other childern but He did not. Seems He was pointing out to Ham that even thou you were the Transgressor you sins affect those you love as well just my opnion thou.

    But even thou it is Canaan who was curse it seems the False doctorines say Curse of Ham a majority of the time. So I was not quoting Scripture but the false doctrine.

    I read the Book of Enoch and althou it is not scripture it seems to say that Noah was white His wife was red and His sons one was White and One Red and One Black so it seems all of the colors of the Human race were represented on the Ark possibly.
     
  7. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,929
    Likes Received:
    369
    Yep, it was Cannaan. I don't know why I went with the curse being on Ham. Guess it just stuck in my mind, which didn't catch up with my fingers.

    Not sure I go with his sons being of different color. I think of it as seperation at Babel. But that isn't scripture, either. In fact, the only references I've found about the cause of different color of skin is in the Song of Solomon, and I take that figuratively.
     
  8. Jacob Webber

    Jacob Webber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answers in Genesis has some good info in a paplet called One Blood
     
  9. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Brother Jacob--

    that web site is

    www.answersingenesis.com

    Ken Hamm is a walking "Einstein"

    see you there!

    Blackbird
     
  10. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You know this reminds me of a few things.

    Some say that the mark of Cain = Vampire
    Some day that Judas was the first vampire.

    It is intresting the way our culture has tried to tie vampires to Biblical causes.

    I personally don't think the LORD would make such things. Because they would be a curse to his children as well.

    And Being black is NOT a mark of dishonor. AS this suggest.

    We are ALL Christians ..... no matter if our skin is purple , pink, or aquamarine.

    -sighs- I wonder when we will ever give racism a break?
     
  11. A.J.Armitage

    A.J.Armitage
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jacob Webber;

    The idea that Cain was cursed with blackness is a Mormon doctrine. They say Ham's wife was black, which is why there are still black people.

    They also say Indians are descended from Israelites who were cursed with dark skin.
     
  12. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I would love to know why "dark" skin is a curse? This makes no sense to me. If a fair skinned person lays out in the sun her or his skin changes pigment.
     
  13. A.J.Armitage

    A.J.Armitage
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the case of Mormons, because Joseph Smith was a racist.
     
  14. GODzThunder

    GODzThunder
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    This belief was started by the slave traders in the old south and was later adopted by Joseph Smith (founder of the LDS) and finally was adopted by various preachers who held ties to the KKK. It is Satan's attempt to cause strife and division in the kingdom of God. Sadly, it is working quite well :(
     
  15. GODzThunder

    GODzThunder
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know some Jewish texts teach that the mark of cain was an X with one of the slashes being a bit longer than the other. hmmmm kind of like a cross! No, there is no proof of this in other texts but it is a neat possibility, that the mark God put on cain to let others know he is protected by the Lord against vengence is the sign of the cross.
     
  16. Jacob Webber

    Jacob Webber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some Jewish text also say that Lamech killed Cain with a Arrow. It seems he was going blind and would get Tubal Cain to tell him the direction of the game. One night while it was dark He heard someone coming and thought it was an intruder and asked Tubail Cain which direction it was coming from and let the arrow go killing Cain. Hence the verse in the Bible:

    Genesis 4:23 ¶ And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
    24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

    But in some other jewish text Cain is killed by a wall of his house falling in on him.
     
  17. rufus

    rufus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is an atrocious doctrine, which ought to be laid to rest [​IMG]
     
  18. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    But although the teaching is false, Rufus----the big question is---where did it(false doctrine of the mark of Cain) come from??

    Here's my theory---the doctrine "crept in unawares" probably during the late '20s and '30s---about the same time that Hitler began introducing his doctrine from Hell concerning his supposed "Aryan" race and Nazism---believe it or not---there was a big "Nazi" movement here in the US with sympathizers to that hellish movement who in their own ways wanted to purify America about the same time----some of the same preachers who would show up at the rallies on Saturday evenings---also showed up in the Pulpit on Sunday morning---and ever so slowly incorporated . . .! There's going to be countless preachers who stand before Almighty God and give account for the false doctrine of racism!

    Blackbird
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    No, Blackbird, it's much older than that.

    In 1757, Quaker John Woolman recorded this tidbit in his journal:

    "Soon after, a Friend in company began to talk in support of the slave-trade, and said the Negroes were understood to be the offspring of Cain, their blackness being the mark which God set upon him after he murdered Abel his brother; that it was the design of Providence they should be slaves, as a condition proper to the race of so wicked a man as Cain was. Then another spake in support of what had been said."

    The Canaan/Ham/Cain justification for black slavery was well-entrenched in arguments in favor of black slavery and is mentioned in several books published before and during the Civil War.

    And it apparently goes back much further than that:

    "Through a very thorough, often highly technical linguistic analysis, G [David M. Goldenberg] administers a telling blow to traditional derivations of the name Ham from a semantic field of heat, darkness, or blackness, and demonstrates that these all turn on a misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew linguistics that can be traced back to no earlier than the first century. Contrary to the assumptions of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish exegesis, G[oldenberg] argues persuasively that the biblical name Ham bears no relationship at all to the notion of blackness and as of now is of unknown etymology. Chapter 11, "Ham Sinned and Canaan Was Cursed", explores the question of why, despite the Bible's explicit statement, various biblical exegetes from the second century on insist that the curse affected not just Canaan but Ham and/or all of Ham's children. It comes as no surprise to learn that growing insistence on the chimerical curse coincides with increasing numbers of black Africans taken as slaves, first in the Islamic East, then in the Christian West, and most perniciously in America. According to G[oldenberg], from the seventh century on the theme is common in Near Eastern sources (Arabic Muslim and Christian Syriac), surfacing in Western (Christian) writers in the fifteenth century and appearing in Jewish sources from the Islamic world a century earlier than in Jewish sources from the Christian west (fourteenth/ fifteenth century). Another peculiar exegetical elaboration (American, but with earlier European roots) is the notion of a curse of Cain, as recorded by Phyllis Wheatley (1773) in her verse: "Remember Christians, Negroes black as Cain/May be refined and joined the angelic train" (quoted, 178). According to this narrative, Cain became the ancestor of black Africans who were destined for enslavement in fulfillment of his curse for the crime of fratricide. G[oldenberg]'s Chapter 13, "The Curse of Cain", argues that the roots of this tradition must go back to Syriac Christian interpretations. These misunderstood rabbinic exegesis to Genesis 4:5, "And Cain was greatly saddened [or distressed] and his face fell," and introduced the idea of Cain's permanent change of skin color (180). Finally, Chapter 14 ("The New World Order") offers a detailed philological analysis of a Jewish commentary to Genesis 9:22-23, the medieval text of Midrash Tanhuma, Noah 13 ... demonstrating that the passage encodes the then prevailing Arabic-Islamic division of the world's peoples by physiognomic markers including but not limited to color."

    -- Molly Myerowitz Levine, review in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2004.02.53
     
  20. GODzThunder

    GODzThunder
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had never read about Lamech possibly being the one who killed Cain. That is very interesting and I will have to research it [​IMG] thanks for sharing
     

Share This Page

Loading...