[table id=6 /]
[table id=1 /]
Ham: Son of Noah
Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham (Cham), and Japheth, but it is Ham and his lineage that settled Africa and various parts of Arabia. Although that is the case, there is lots of evidence that Ham was not the only black son, but may have had black skin in common with Shem. According to scripture, the brothers were born when Noah was 500 years old.
According to the Strong’s Concordance #2526 (Cham) is defined as: a son of Noah, also his descendants, also a name for Egyptians. This definition plays a role in the very way we look at scripture because:
- Mainstream Christianity teaches that Ham’s children were black.
- The Bible teaches that Hebrews were mistaken for Egyptians.
- History (Tacitus) teaches that Hebrews were mistaken for Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity ignore all of the above when it comes to identifying, painting, and casting actors for movie roles. We’re presented with a false perception that everyone in scripture was white. Understanding the role, ethnicity, and lineage of Ham is a key in ending the deception of a Eurocentric Bible view.
Was Ham Noah’s Youngest Son of Noah?
In ancient Hebrew culture, it was customary to list the children in the order of their birth, which means that Ham was possibly the middle son, and not the youngest. There is an exception to this rule, and that is when the elder ends up serving the younger. It is no coincidence that the youngest child is almost always the chosen child:
- Seth was the youngest son of Adam.
- Isaac was younger than Ishmael.
- Jacob was younger than Esau.
- Pharez was younger than Zerah.
- David was younger than his brothers.
- Solomon was David’s youngest son.
We know from Genesis 10:21 that Japheth is the oldest son. What’s interesting to note is that when all three are mentioned together, Shem is almost always first, Ham is ALWAYS second, and Japheth is almost always list. This is consistent and you can check for yourself:
- Genesis 5:32
- Genesis 6:10
- Genesis 7:13
- Genesis 9:18
- Genesis 10:1
- 1 Chronicles 1:4
There is only one exception to the above order. It occurs in Genesis 10 where Japheth is listed first in the genealogy, Ham is still mentioned second, and Shem is mentioned last. In both examples, Ham is the only one that never changes from the middle position. This isn’t concrete proof, but it does cast doubt on whether or not Ham was the youngest. The order of birth becomes more significant when we look into the false teaching that Ham was cursed by Noah.
The Curse of Ham – A False Teaching
There are many church leaders that have helped spread the false teaching that Ham was cursed by Noah to have black skin, and that teaching has been used to justify both slavery and racism toward black people all over there world. Here is what the Bible actually says:
“And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.” – Genesis 9:21-23
The attempt to make Ham the target of the curse is the very definition of false teaching, when the verse clearly names Canaan as the target of the curse. As the story unfolds, we see that Ham was the one that discovered his father naked and immediately told his brothers. From these three verses, many false teachers have decided to create false doctrine to push on the church.
- The Bible does not say that he uncovered his father’s nakedness.
- The Bible does not say he had sex with his mother.
- The Bible does not say he had sex with Noah.
- The Bible does not say he castrated Noah.
There are no indications that any of the above scenarios took place, and yet these teachings are very prevalent within the church. Those that teach or follow such doctrine are either deceiving, being deceived, or both. The Bible goes on to say:
The verse makes reference to Noah’s “younger son”, but he then curses his grandson Canaan. Many of the false teachings that spring from these verses are due to a lack of cultural understanding or just flat out ignoring what the Bible says in order to push a race based agenda:
- The word “grandson does not appear in the Bible”.
- Grandsons and granddaughters were referred to as sons and daughters.
- The phrase “younger son” can refer to a grandson as well as a son.
As we learned above, children were usually (not always) listed in the order in which they were born, and Genesis 10:6 lists Canaan as the last son of Ham, which fits with Noah referring to him as his “younger son”. In context, it was likely Canaan that did whatever it is that he did, which is why Canaan was cursed and not Ham, Mizraim, Cush, or Phut.
Beware of False Teachers Adding Words
One way false teachers deceive people is by playing around with words, inserting them where there are none, and avoiding common sense questions. Most of these false teachers will insert the word “uncovered” to replace the word “saw” so that they can falsely interpret the text as follows:
We can easily prove this to be a false teaching by looking at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 9:22:
- Saw (Strong’s #7200): raah – see, appear, became visible
This is important because they use the following verse in an attempt to justify their false teaching, causing many to fall for the false connection.
“The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.” – Leviticus 18:7
Problem #1 – The Wrong Words
We’ve already seen the word used for “saw” in Genesis, so lets look at which word is used in Leviticus since BOTH books were written by Moses:
- Uncover (Strongs #1540): galah – uncover, remove, expose
There are clearly two different words used, and because it’s the same author, it means the difference is INTENTIONAL so that the ideas will not be mixed up.
Problem #2 – The Wrong Timing
The law in Leviticus did not come until AFTER the time of Noah, which means even if Ham had done something with his mother, it wouldn’t have been breaking a law, but would’ve been a personal slight against Noah.
Problem #3 – Playing Semantics
The text in Leviticus clearly says “the nakedness of thy father” AND “the nakedness of thy mother”. The text differentiates between the two, but those teaching that Ham did something to his mother will not point it out. Over and over again, the Genesis text makes it clear that Ham SAW the nakedness of his father. If he’d seen his mother naked, it would use the same words as Moses used in Leviticus and said it was “the nakedness of his mother.”
Problem #4 – Stripping Context
Not once is Noah’s wife mentioned in any of the text. Genesis 9 is a story that is 100% clear to those that don’t want to strip the context of scripture.
- Noah planted a vineyard and grew grapes.
- Noah got drunk on wine.
- Noah fell asleep.
- Noah was seen naked by Ham.
- Ham told his brothers that Noah was naked.
- Shem and Japheth covered their eyes and then covered Noah.
- Noah woke up from being drunk and realized what had happened.
- Noah cursed his grandson Canaan
These are the 8 major facts of the story. Here’s what we are NOT allowed to add to the text based on the twisting of scripture.
- At no point should we jump to the conclusion that Ham was the reason his father was naked because the text does not use the same word as used in Leviticus for “uncover”.
- At no point should we assume that Ham got his mother pregnant with Canaan, because the text doesn’t say that.
How Long After The Flood Did This Happen?
In order to get a good idea of the time frame, I decided to Google how long it takes grapes to grow, and the answer was up to three years. If we break down the amount of time the flood waters were on the earth we get roughly a year. This event would’ve occurred 4+ years after the rain began to fall for 40 days and nights.
- This time frame ONLY works if Noah immediately planted his vineyard after getting off of the ark.
- If Noah did not plant the vineyard immediately, it means the event occurred more than 4 years after the flood.
- The Bible doesn’t tell us how long after the flood that Noah planted his vineyard.
The fact is that there was plenty of time for Canaan to already have been born. It’s even possible that Ham’s wife got pregnant while they were waiting for the flood waters to dry up. Unfortunately, we’re not told how old Ham was when Canaan was born, nor are we told how hold Canaan was when he died.
While we may not know all the details of the situation, we do know that Ham DID NOT uncover the nakedness of his mother because his mother isn’t mentioned and the word for “uncover” isn’t used in the entire chapter.
The Lineage of Ham and The Land of Ham
It is through Ham’s lineage that we see the development of most of Africa and a large portion of the Middle East, including modern day Israel and Iraq. Here is a breakdown of Ham’s lineage and the countries they founded. We know that Egypt was considered the “land of Ham” because of the following verses:
“They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.” – Psalms 105:27
The Land of Ham was Egypt based on the context and reference to the events in Exodus. Many believe these verses to have been written by David. Those that claim that Ham was the father of all black Africans and then deny that Egyptians were black even though the descended from Ham, do so based solely on their racial bias to Hebrews marrying, living among, and being mistaken for black people.
The Sons of Ham (Genesis 10:6)
The Sons of Cush (Ham’s Grandsons)
- Seba (North-Easter Africa)
- Havilah (North-West Yemen)
- Sabtah (Near Ethiopia and Sudan)
- Raamah (Near Saudi Arabia)
- Sabtecha (Unknown)
- Nimrod (Iraq / Babylon)
The Sons of Mizraim (Ham’s Grandsons)
- Ludim (The Moors – Near Libya)
- Anamim (unknown)
- Lehabim (unknown)
- Naphtuhim (Meroe)
- Pathrusim (Pathros – Upper Egypt)
- Casluhim (Part of Egypt)
- Caphtorim (Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete)
The Sons of Canaan (Ham’s Grandsons)
- Sidon (Lebanon)
- Heth (Hittites – Hebron / Canaan)
- Jebusite (Canaan)
- Amorite (Canaan)
- Girgasite (Canaan)
- Hivite (Canaan)
- Arkite (Canaan)
- Sinite (Canaan)
- Arvadite (Canaan)
- Zemarite (Canaan)
- Hamathite (Canaan)
The sons of Phut are not mentioned, but we know that they existed because Phut’s lineage (Libyans) is mentioned in general several times in scripture. When we look at all of the countries that descended from Ham, and then we look at scripture, we see that not only did the Hebrews interact and mix with them regularly, but we see that they inhabited large parts of the “Middle East”, which casts major doubt on the notion that Arabia of the past was full of white or even light skinned people as it is in the modern day.
Shemite and Hamite Intermixing
One very interesting fact that we find in scripture, is that the descendants of Ham and Shem often mixed. The following is a list of Hamites and Shemites that mixed and the children they had if applicable (names listed in alphabetical order by male’s name):
[table id=11 /]
Contradictions In Eurocentric Christian Theology
When it comes to European Christian theology, there are major contradictions when it comes to Ham, his descendants, and what they looked like. In racist theology like Christian Identity and Mormonism, black people are seen as cursed, which is often used as an excuse to justify evils like slavery and murder. However, European Christians can’t seem to get their theology straight. Even though they teach the black people come from Ham:
- They deny that ancient Canaanites were black, even though they’re descendants of Ham’s son Canaan.
- They deny that ancient Libyans were black, even though they’re descendants of Ham’s son Phut.
- They deny that ancient Egyptians were black, even though they’re descendants of Ham’s son Mizraim.
- They deny that ancient Babylonians were black, even though they’re descendants of Ham’s son Cush.
Ham only had four sons, which means they deny the blackness of his only four sons, while claiming that Ham is the father of all black people. The reason for this outright denial of the truth in spite of the facts and their own theology is 100% based on skin color. Europeans understand that if they concretely admit that any of Ham’s four sons were beyond a shadow of a doubt black, then they also have to admit that Hebrews were black as well because they mixed with the descendants of Ham.
[table id=25 /]
Please Take A Moment To Share
If you enjoyed this study, please take a moment to click the button below and share it. Thanks in advance.
[table id=2 /]
[table id=10 /]