The curse of Ham...corrected as the curse of Canaan

The furthest stretch that can be conceived is that Ham, Shem and Japheth were of a mixed blood race and that Ham was the darkest of them. This is a stretch. Even with this being the case you are still 100% blood brothers, which means no matter what hue Ham could be Ham’s children have just as likely a chance at becoming the same color as Shem and Japheth’s children. The only variable are the wives and nobody knows.
So, the best route we have to use on the color of Shem’s children Japheth’s children and Ham’s children is based on who those children married and where those children went with their families; because where they took their families would have the GREATEST impact on who they chose as wives and what color their children’s children would be

---

based on what country they went to and who their wives were. If I have to make this any clearer then what I’m saying is Ham was not black. Ham, possibly was of a mixed race (as Middle Easterners are) as also was most likely his wife and his brother’s wives. His children went into different lands and the sun or lack of sun then produced a greater extreme of skin color now called race. This is one of only 2 possible possibilities. The second possibility is unbiblical and it is that there were already people in those other countries and when Japheth, Shem and Ham’s children arrived in those different countries then those people were already different colored races and Japheth, Shem and Ham’s children took the women from those countries as wives and mixed in with them and eventually became the color that was already prominent in that country.
Of both these points, neither states Ham as black or Canaan as black.
If what I have said does not make sense, then let’s consider the alternative.
What’s the alternative?
Ham was already somehow a very different color than the rest of his brothers. Is this the alternative?
Ham suddenly one day out of the blue just changed to a different color and his brothers did the same?
Ham was somehow a different color than his father Noah and his mother Methusala?
Even though Ham didn’t go to Africa to live he somehow also changed color and when he changed color, his sons also all turned a different color—even though they were adults with wives when they were on the boat with Noah?
Another alternative is the following:
Ham, Shem, and Japheth were all Black. Which, this theory is not ridiculous since Africans carry the gene that produces more color variations than any other race. Who says this? Well, everyone that knows anything about genes and science. Let’s use NBC news as a source as they stated in 2009
“Africans have more genetic variation than anyone else on Earth, according to a new study that helps narrow the location where humans first evolved, probably near the South Africa-Namibia border.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30502963/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/africans-have-worlds-greatest-genetic-variation/#.Uqtw1-KQODk
Ham was one color, but all of a sudden his African and Middle Eastern kids (Mizraim,Phut, Canaan and Cush)all of a sudden went to those distant lands (distant wouldn’t be necessary to write if they didn’t leave a land closeby) and in their adulthood all of a sudden changed color and race to such an extreme that one became white and the other black?
These are the only alternatives and they are lucrative. Nobody changes color overnight, and the bible never says they did.
The last alternative is that the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth were already the color that they were, but wait for it…..wait for it….here’s the kicker that is unbelievable. Let’s say Shem, Ham and Japheth and their sons were already the color they were and somehow under the most ironies of irony they also just so happened to disperse to the very country and lands that were most beneficial to their skin color? What did they do look at a compass and base their skin’s melanin on where they would go and then spread out? Let’s not forget they had to tell their cousins (the children of Ham, Shem and Japheth) not to follow me. “We will only go to these lands and stay in these lands based off our color and we will not go anywhere else for a long time.” This is not what the bible states happened. They didn’t go into these lands based on skin color and this is what would have had to happen if someone says the brothers all were different races (even though they’re 100% blood brothers) and just ironically happened to go to the very lands that benefitted their skin color/tone/hue.Now that we can see the former alternatives are illogical and not biblically founded, let’s look at the logical. They went into those lands the same color as their cousins and uncle’s and years later due to the sun, weather, who they chose to marry, natural preference for what type of woman they wanted, all effected the color that they already had in their genes and through this a greater degree of color differentiation and features became prominent as THEIR children had more and more children. Do not confuse their color changed as they had kids because Ham, Canaan, Shem, Japheth and I included Canaan on purpose; their color never changed. Otherwise, wouldn’t the bible include that somehow miraculously a person went from one color to the next? Maybe you say the bible didn’t find such a miracle worth recording. Well Solomon for no reason states he’s black, the bible says the people who had leprosy had changes of skin color, it describes Jesus in an image as having feet of bronze. It shows people’s hair with locks. The bible shows color sometime for no reason, would it not record someone that just was one color yesterday and then next month changed color: which this is what would have to have happened to Ham, Canaan, Shem and Japheth under these alternatives.
Simply, put it didn’t happen that way according to the bible. It happened that way in the 1800’s because whites wanted to distort the story and lie about what happened. Later in this essay I will show exactly where and who authored the hamitic theory.

Now that I have made my point. Let me back this point of truth up with validation and resources.

They were the Canaanites whom the Jews warred against when they conquered the Promised Land under Joshua.
The black race descended from Cush and possibly from Put, other sons of Ham who were not involved in the incident or the curse
4. The curse was fulfilled when the Canaanites became slaves to the Jews. That was 3,000 years ago, in the days after Moses. The Canaanites have long since disappeared from history.
That should have ended the matter, but thousands of years later whites brought the curse back from the dead: Ham had four sons who peopled the following present-day countries:
•Cush: Sudan•Mizraim: Egypt•Phut: Libya
•Canaan: Israel (Thus Canaan being in Israel were the Canaanites, which could have been black but also are more likely to have been white but surely are not the Africans.)
Presumably in time they filled the rest of Africa.The curse falls on Canaan, not Ham! Nor does it does fall on Cush, Phut, Mizraim or anyone else in Africa.
Never mind that the Bible places limitations on curses-only three or four generations at most (Ex. 20:5). http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/18/are-black-people-cursed-curse-ham/
Never mind that the curse on Canaan and his descendants-"Now there, you are cursed, and none of you shall be freed from being slaves"-finds its most obvious fulfillment in the ongoing defeat and subjugation of Canaan by Israel (Josh. 9:23; 1 Kings 9:20-21).
Never mind that the descendants of Ham's other sons-Cush, Mizraim, and Put-have continued to this day as national peoples in Ethiopia (Cush), Egypt (Mizraim), and Libya (Put).
And never mind that ? says that curses based on disobedience are reversed when people repent and turn again to obedience (Ex. 20:6). This is certainly sufficient to negate the Christian endorsement of the American enslavement of black Christians.
[This aforementioned ends the presentation on all the reasons biblically why the Africans after AD and in BC are not and were not involved in the curse of Canaan; at least in the furthest stretch of imagination at least 80% --4 sons- were not involved if not 100% and definitely none claimed it in the years of AD]
One more thing is Noah did not curse Canaan's relatives to be servants of his uncle's Shem and Japheth. He cursed Canaan and only Canaan. But, I will entertain him cursing Canaan’s children also.
4.[Everything below is extra stuff concerning the residence of the Canaanites and the curse being proven biblically to take place in the land of Canaan on the Canaanites which were not black]
Canaan “normally represents the land of Palestine and Phoenicia…the Old Testament… use the term for inhabitants of the area in a general sense…These many tribes are in some way related to Canaan, and thus are called Canaanites.” So “Ham is the ancestor of all these people from Phoenicia [through Palestine and Egypt] to Africa.” It is an unjustified leap of logic to reassign Noah’s curse away from Canaan to Ham (his father) or Cush, his black “Ethiopian” brother. The notion that Ham himself was black, originated in later rabbinical folklore. It is without Scriptural foundation. Hence expositors conclude5 “The reputed curse of Ham is not on Ham, but on Canaan, one of Ham’s sons. This is not a racial but geographic referent. The Canaanites, typically associated with the region of the Levant (Palestine, Lebanon, etc) were later subjugated by the Hebrews when they left ? in Egypt according to the Biblical narrative.” Thus, these scholars conclude the object of Noah’s curse was not black people, but Canaan, the forefather of the Canaanites. Noah’s curse was fulfilled by the Hebrews’ subjugation of the Canaanites. Canaan became “a slaves of slaves,” when the Canaanites [e.g. the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:21, 27)] served the ex-slaves from Egypt, the Children of Israel. Genesis provides no biblical support for the assertion that black people are under Noah’s curse.
The only reason the Canaanites were in Egypt was due to being servants of the Egyptians. Again, they were not in their natural land. They went to Egypt and were slaves to the Egyptians.
It’s worth quoting more of the NIV Study Bible’s notes on Genesis 9:25 in their entirety: “Cursed be Canaan! …This account of Noah’s cursing and blessing of his sons is addressed to Israel. Most likely it is for this reason that Canaan is here singled out from Ham’s descendants as the object of Noah’s curse.
Israel would experience firsthand the depth of Canaanite sin (see Lev 18:2-3, 6-30) and the harshness of ? ’s judgment on it. In that judgment Noah’s curse came to be fulfilled in the experience of this segment of Ham’s descendants. But Ham’s offspring, as listed in 10:6-13, included many of Israel’s other long-term enemies (Egypt, Philistia, Assyria, Babylonia) who also experienced severe divine judgment because of their hostility to Israel and Israel’s ? . Lowest of slaves. Joshua’s subjection of the Gibeonites (Jos. 9:21, 27) is one of the fulfillments (see also Jos 16:10; Jug 1:28, 30, 33, 35; 1 Ki 9:20-21). Noah’s curse cannot be used to justify the enslavement of blacks, since most of Ham’s descendants are known to be Caucasian, as the Canaanites certainly were (as shown by ancient paintings of the Canaanites discovered in Egypt).” [NIV Study Bible, Zondervan]
So where did this lie originate? [The next three pages will explain. The following 3 pages are the words of someone else and not me.]
Dwight Callahan’s The Talking Book, African Americans and the Bible on pg.29
http://politicaljesus.com/2011/05/24/no-black-people-did-not-descend-from-ham/#sthash.oi4YsSIq.dpbs
In 1859, Jefferson Davis defended slavery as “the importation of the race of Ham” since Africans were destined to be the slaves of whites.
But, I’m toying with you with the former sentence. Here is the true answer to where all of Ham’s children were cursed with blackness comes from?
In the third or fourth-century C.E. with Syriac Christians via a work titled the Cave of Treasures, and then further taken up by the Arab Muslims in the seventh-century following their conquest of North Africa (and the two, in turn, later influencing the Jewish exegetical treatment of the story). Goldenberg further observes that the Cave of Treasures in its various recensions down the centuries extends the curse to not just Kushites, but all blacks defined to include, for example, the Egyptian Copts, East Indians and Ethiopians (that is they are all descendents, according to the Cave of Treasures, of Ham). Hence, Goldenberg quotes one version as reading “When Noah awoke…he cursed him and said: ‘Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers’…and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life forever” (p. 173).
http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/hamitic.pdf

Now the question that one must ask here is, When do the descendants of Ham, while still residing in Africa, rejoin the family of Europeans as a subgroup of Caucasians? It occurs during the period of the beginnings of the colonization of Africa. There are two factors that account for this development: the emergence of scientific explanations of race during the era of the Enlightenment when theological explanations began to give way to scientific explanations of the natural world; and the arrival of Napoleon's Army in Egypt in 1798, accompanied by French scientists who would go on to establish the new discipline of Egyptology. The former factor established the possibility of polygenesis as an alternative to the biblical theory of monogenesis (all human beings were descendents of Adam); that is not all human beings have a common ancestor, but that some had emerged separately as a subspecies of humankind. The latter factor's role turns on the startling discovery by the French scientists that the Egyptian civilization, that is the civilization of black people, was the precursor of the Western civilization. Now, this finding met with considerable opposition in the West since for some it flew in the face of the prevalent racist notions that dialectically justified and drew succor from the ongoing Atlantic slave trade, while for others it stood in opposition to the biblical notion of black people as accursed descendents of Ham. The resolution of the problem of determining who were the ancient Egyptians, therefore, was resolved by turning to a polygenetic explanation. Specifically, following a rereading of the Bible the notion emerged that the Egyptians were the descendents of that other son of Ham, Mizraim, who it was argued had not been cursed as Canaan had been. By isolating Canaan from his brothers, Mizraim and Cush, it was possible to suggest that only the descendents of Canaan had been cursed, and not those of Mizraim and Cush.
The ancient Egyptians therefore were not a black people, it was argued, but a Caucasian subgroup, the Hamites.
To provide scientific support for this view, Western scientists in the nineteenth-century, especially those working in the United States (perhaps spurred on by the need to justify slavery in the face of rising abolitionist sentiments), emerged with the bogus “science of craniometry,” that purported to prove on the basis of the measurement of human skulls a hierarchy of intelligence among different groups of people (blacks with supposedly the smallest crania, and hence the smallest brain, falling to the very bottom).3 On the basis of this bogus science it was quickly established that the ancient Egyptians were not black Africans, but Hamites. However, it is important to point out here that the Hamites were not completely shorn off of their early inferior status as descendants of the accursed Ham. Rather they were considered to be an inferior subgroup of the Caucasian group, but superior to black peoples. (In other words, a new internal hierarchy was established among the descendants of Jephet where the Tuetonic Anglo-Saxons were at the very top and the Hamites at the very bottom and eastern and southern Europeans—Slavs, Italians, Portuguese,
3. The literature on the historical origins of the ideology of racism in the West is fairly extensive. As an entry-point into this literature the following select sources will prove to be, for present purposes, more than adequate: Bieder (1986); Davies, Nandy, and Sardar (1993); Drescher (1992); Frederickson (2002); Gould (1971); Hannaford (1996); Huemer (1998); Jackson and Weidman (2004); Jordan (1968); Kovel (1988); Libby, Spickard, and Ditto (2005); Niro (2003); Pieterse (1992); Reilly, Kaufman, and Bodino (2003); Shipman (1994); Smedley (1993); Stanton (1960); and Wolpoff and Caspari (1997). Note that although Jordan, and Libby, Spickard, and Ditto are very specific to the U.S. context, they are included here because of their treatment of an important element in the formation of Western racist ideologies not given as much attention in the literature as it deserves: the role of sexuality.
Greeks, etc.—somewhere in the middle.) Thus was born the infamous Hamitic theory that was used to explain any expression of the grandeur of African history that Europeans came across. Hamites were Africans, but they were Caucasian in origin—they came from outside Africa.4

HERE IS THE BEST PART AND THE MOST IMPORTANT AS IT RELATES TO PROVING CANAAN WAS NOT BLACK:
THIS ULTIMATELY PROVES CANAAN WAS NOT BLACK
Let’s follow the curse adequately. Through my own quick research of Encyclopedia’s and Wikipedia and internet.
Let’s look to see who the sons of Canaan were:
Canaan's descendants, according to the Hebrew Bible, include:
1.Sidonians, i.e. the Phoenicians2.Hittites, children of Heth3.Jebusites4.Amorites5.Girgashites6.Hivites7.Arkites8.Sinites9.Arvadites10.Zemarites11.Hamathite

1st- Sidon is the 1st son of Canaan: Sidon also had a city named after him and the location of the city further illustrates he did not reside in Africa. Sidon’s first residents/earliest residents were Phoenicians. They were located on the coast of Canaan. Now, if you can’t see that the City of Sidon is where the son of Canaan, named Sidon, lived---along the side of the coast of land called Canaan----you must be blind!! Where did I get this info? Well, you go research for yourself if you don’t believe me. I won’t tell you. I’ve already done enough work/research on here. Go do some searching for yourself. Now, that you might feel me or not feel what I’m saying here’s where I got it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon
The bible also further illustrates that this city of Sidon was to the son of Canaan and located in this area and not Africa by saying “It lay within the lot of the tribe of Asher, but was never subdued (Judges 1:31).”
Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it… if the children of Canaan were also to be cursed then wait for it….wait for it….Why did they rule over the Israelites? This does not sound like slavery, if the slaves are the rulers. “The Sidonians long oppressed Israel (Judges 10:12).” Now, maybe I’m wrong but the time of Judges comes after Genesis.
Now where did the children of Canaan reside? (1 Chronicles 1:8-16) And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto ? , and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha. 20These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
2nd son Heth-Hittite:In the early 20th century, the biblical Hittites were identified with a newly discovered Indo-European-speaking empire of Anatolia, a major regional power through most of the 2nd millennium BC, who therefore came to be known as the Hittites. This nomenclature is used today as a matter of convention, regardless of debates about possible identities between the Anatolian Hittite Empire and the biblical Hittites.
Given the casual tone in which the Hittites are mentioned in most Old Testament references, biblical scholars before the age of archaeology traditionally regarded them as a smaller tribe, living in the hills of Canaan during the era of the Patriarchs, including Abraham. This picture was completely changed by the archaeological finds that placed the center of the Hatti/Hattusas civilization far to the north, in modern-day Turkey, relegating Hittites in Canaan to a periphery.
Now do not think the Hittites resided in Egypt. The land of Canaan is not in Egypt and The Hittites were north of Canaan. Even the bible shows the Hittites were a separate kingdom from Egypt in the same way Syria is separate from Egypt.
2 Chronicles 1:17: "And they fetched up, and brought forth out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty: and so brought they out horses for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, by their means." In these cases there can be little doubt that the references are to the neo-Hittite kingdoms of Syria.
How far did the Hittites land extend? In Joshua 1:4 the land of the Hittites is said to extend "from the wilderness and this Lebanon", from "the Euphrates unto the great sea".
3rd son- Jebusites-the Jebusites (Hebrew: יְבוּסִי, Modern Yevusi Tiberian Yəḇûsî ISO 259-3 Ybusi) were a Canaanite tribe who inhabited and built Jerusalem prior to its conquest by King David according to the Biblical account; the Books of Kings state that Jerusalem was known as Jebus prior to this event. According to some Biblical chronologies, the city was conquered by King David in 1003 BC,[1] or according to other sources 869 BC.[2]
The Hittites and Jebusites are thought to be the same people (which makes sense since they were brothers/cousins).
Judges 1:21 portrays the Jebusites as continuing to dwell at Jerusalem, within the territory otherwise occupied by the Tribe of Judah and Tribe of Benjamin.
4th Amorites- refers to an ancient Semitic-speaking people[1] from ancient Syria who also occupied large parts of Mesopotamia from the 21st Century BC. The term Amurru in Akkadian and Sumerian texts refers to them, as well as to their principal deity.
Again, NOT AFRICA. Many countries/peoples in Africa are mentioned in the Bible, but I can go through and show that the Canaan ancestors are not.
In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land of the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated not with Mesopotamia but with lands immediately to the West, including what is now modern Syria and Canaan. They appear as nomadic people in the Mesopotamian sources, and they are especially connected with the mountainous region of Jebel Bishri in Syria called the "mountain of the Amorites".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
Now let’s return to scripture. According to the Hebrew scriptures, Amalek is distinct from the Amorites. "The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan." (1769 Oxford King James Bible "Authorized Version", Numbers 13:29)
5th Girgashites- Nothing is known about them except that Probably they lived somewhere in the central part of Western Palestine. This is according to the dictionary. They were inhabitants of the land of Canaan according to Genesis 15:21, Deuteronomy 7:1, Joshua 3:10, 24:11, and Nehemiah 9:8.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girgashites#Girgashites
6th- Hivites- Biblically it is stated that they were one of the 7 nations to be removed from Canaan for the Children of Israel. The Hivites dwelt in the mountainous regions of Canaan stretching from Lebanon – specifically Lebo Hamath (Judges 3:3) - and Mt. Hermon (Joshua 11:3) in the north to the central Benjamin plateau in the Hill country just north of Jerusalem. Within this region we find specific enclaves of Hivites mentioned in the Bible. Genesis 34 describes Hivites ruling the region of Shechem. Further south there were the four Hivite towns – Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath Jearim (Joshua 9:17) – involved in the deception of Joshua. (Joshua 9:3-27)
Joshua 11:3 described the Hivites as being "under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh" and in 2 Samuel 24:7 they are mentioned immediately after "the stronghold of Tyre."
7th-Arkites- Archites were the descendants of Canaan according to Genesis 10:17 and 1 Chronicles 1:15 and were inhabitants of the land of Canaan according to Joshua 16:2. David's friend Hushai was an Archite (2 Samuel 15:32). The Arkites inhabited Arqa, a city in the north of what is now Lebanon.
This is North of Phoenicia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkites

NOW SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHERE AFRICANS COME TO BE RELATED WITH ANY OF CANAAN’S CHILDREN???? We now see where those sons of Canaan resided and lived. None of those lands are African. None of the people are African. If the Ham, Shem, Noah and Japheth were all black or if the curse was on Cush, Mizraim or Phut then it would be completely valid for that time and within reason to say it was on Blacks, but yet and still it would not be placed on anyone in the year AD.
THE AFRICAN SIDE OF HAM was in Cush,Phut and Mizraim. And they were never cursed.

Now a review of all the points I have made:

Phut, Mizraim, and Cush were Black African.
Canaan-was Middle Eastern
Ham was the same color as all his brothers due to having the same mother and father.
Either all of the sons were black and everyone in the world at that time having high contents of melanin, which is very highly possible and likely according to science and history showing that man started from Africa and then migrated; so either everyone was black and Ham and Canaan were black or the theory that I have proposed in this essay is true...which is Ham's other sons were black and Canaan was much lighter than his brothers due to never leaving Canaan whereas the others eventually went to Libya, Ethiopia and Sudan. **Side note** When I say everybody would have to be black; I mean Noah, Shem Japheth and everybody in that entire family would have to be black. I am also again not discounting that everybody was black, I am only stating that if they weren't all black.....then Canaan was not black. Hard to understand but I've made the point.
The wives would influence the color of the children.
Where the children went would influence hundreds of years later the color of their skin.
The curse was fulfilled and done
No curse lasts forever.
Jesus free all from the curses of the Old Testament.
The curse was never skin based or related.
Canaan’s children and children’s children to this day went to the Middle East and Not Africa at all.
The Hamitic Theory was introduced by Europeans to justify European enslavement of Europeans first and then transformed itself to direct it towards Blacks. The theory was embraced by Muslims, Jews, and White Christians with no biological or geographical backing.
None of Canaan’s children are traced to Africa.
The curse was never applied to Ham’s black sons.
And again, the statements on who the curse was applied to does not apply after Jesus was resurrected. It never said anything about the color of skin being an attachment to the curse. The one son of Ham that wasn’t black is who received the curse. The church owes the Black race and Africans an apology and should publicly come out and apologize for what they taught and spread which was blasphemous and counterproductive to the true faith and teachings of Christianity.