Order Biblical Black History calendars with colorful Biblical Art at WWW.BLACKSINTHEBIBLE.COM

                           HAM

                            Father of the Black Races

            More legends have arisen and more lies have been told about Hăm than about any other character in Scripture.  Sadly, more lore than truth is known about Hăm, his name, and the land he founded.  Hăm was the father of the black races, and he undoubtedly carried the most dominant genes regarding skin pigmentation, since he named his firstborn son Cush, which means black. Hăm must have been a very great man, since centuries after his death the book of Psalms referred to ancient Egypt as “the land of Hăm.” (Ps. 105:23, 27)  “Webster’s Dictionary” states that Hăm was the progenitor of the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Nubians, Canaanites, and Libyans.  In the Middle East, Hăm’s name is imbedded in the names of the world’s most honored statesmen and religious figures which the book Blacks in the Bible Vol. I details. Although Hăm was the father of the black races his name does not mean black.   It was Cush, his son, whose name meant black.  However, the Scriptures indicate that Ham’s name means village/multitude (nation).  It is interesting to note that in America Ham’s name means something entirely different than it meant in Mother England.  The common usage of the word Ham in the West refers to the flesh of one of the filthiest creatures on earth, the pig.  However, in Great Britain, a land far older than America, the word “ham” does not have its roots in swine’s flesh, but rather means a village.  For the rest of the story order Blacks in the Bible Vol. I or The Complete Works of Biblical Black History at WWW.BLACKSINTHEBIBLE.NET

HAM, THE FATHER OF CANAAN

       The Scripture makes a peculiar reference to Ham’s son Canaan, who became a disgrace to his father:

             “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.” (Gen. 9:18)

 The Genesis account records the event that led to Ham’s youngest son being cursed by Noah for doing something “unto” him. (Gen. 9:24)   

 “And Noah began to be a 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 [outside].  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.  And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.  And he said,  Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.  God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” (Gen. 9:20-27)

 Noah cursed his grandson Canaan, who was the father of the Canaanites, not Ham, the progenitor of all Negroid races.  Yet, racism toward blacks has found its way into Euro- Christian doctrine which alleges that God cursed Ham, which would mean all Negroid peoples are cursed, since Ham is the father of the Negroid races.  This did not happen.  In examining this passage, we find Ham discovered his father, Noah, drunk and naked inside his father’s tent.  The Scripture gives an account of Ham’s actions stating that after he found his father in this condition, he immediately left to tell his brothers who were outside their father’s tent.  However, when we examine Noah’s statements after he sobers, he is pronouncing a three-fold curse not on Ham, but on Canaan, Ham’s son.   The account states that: “Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.” (Gen. 9:24)  Something had been “done unto” Noah by his “younger” son, so why did he curse Canaan instead of Ham?  Canaan was not Noah’s son.  To unravel this mystery, one must understand that in Scripture, there is no word for grandson, so when Noah cursed his “younger son” was actually a curse on his grandson Canaan, since the Scriptures do not separate generations into grandsons and great grandsons.  In those days, they referred to a grandson or a great grandson simply as “son.” (Gen. 31:24-28, Matt. 1:20, 9:27) When we compare Scripture with Scripture we find that “A curse causeless shall not come.”  (Prov. 26:2)  In other words, a curse can only fall on the guilty party,  which here was not Ham, but Canaan.  Since “a curse causeless shall not come” then the guilty one was Canaan, for the curse came upon him.  Only Canaan and his descendants were to bear his curse by being slaves, even in their own land. Order Blacks in the Bible Vol. I or The Complete Works of Biblical Black History for your personal library of knowledge. 

MANY WESTERN THEOLOGIANS HAVE FRAMED HAM

            Although Ham was not cursed, many Europeans of old believed Ham to be guilty and cursed by Noah. This error is all too common in many modern commentaries.  The belief that Ham was cursed lead many Caucasians to believe that every person of Negroid descent  may be  enslaved.  The truth is, the only strain in the line of Ham that was cursed were the Canaanites, black tribes that descended from Canaan and occupied the Promised Land, called “the land of Canaan,” Israel.   

            Many sects in early European Christianity villainized Ham as the cursed culprit, stating that God cursed Ham by  making his skin black.  This is nothing more than racism.  We need only look at the names of Ham’s sons, all of whom were born before Canaan was cursed.  Ham’s firstborn son was Cush whose name means black, and he was born before Noah issued any curse at all. Therefore, it is evident Ham carried the dominant genes in regards to skin pigmentation.  Ham’s third son’s name was Mizraim, whose name meant soil red, or red soil.  Hence, Ham carried melanin in his genes prior to the birth of Canaan, his youngest son.  Ham has also been slandered by other so-called Bible scholars who state his wife was a descendant of Cain, the slayer of Abel, and that the mark God set on Cain made him black skinned.  They allege that although Ham came from Noah, his wife was of the cursed line of Cain, a true Caininite. (Gen. 4:9-11, 15)  The Bible does not indicate from which line any of Noah’s sons’ wives came from nor does it provide any clues to determine this type of information.  This is another remnant of early racism that found its way into American churches.  Not once in Scripture did God ever turn anyone’s skin black as a punishment.  On the contrary, in Scripture, when God marked people’s skin, he always turned it white with the mark of leprosy.  In displaying his power to Moses, God turned Moses’ hand white with the plague of leprosy then turned it back to its original color, the same color Moses’ African stepmother used to pass him off as a North African prince. (Heb. 11:24)  Later, God cursed Moses’ sister, turning her skin “as white as snow” for speaking against Moses’ Ethiopian wife. (Num. 12:1, 10-11)  Gehazi’s skin was turned “as white as snow” by a prophet of God for his abomination. (2 Kings 5:27)  In Scriptures skin was never turned black because of some curse. On the contrary, it was always turned white, marked by the skin disease known as leprosy. 

THE STORY OF NOAH’S ARK CAN ONLY BE VERIFIED BY HAM’S EXISTENCE

            Order Blacks in the Bible Vol. I for the complete story at WWW.BLACKSINTHEBIBLE.NET

.