...is this really in the bible??

Question

the story of Noah's son, Ham. He was cursed by god and a "mark" placed on his skin (color).

This story is what the KKK has used as a biblical reference for advocating racism against blacks. According to the story, god has cursed them all.

is this really in the bible? whats it suppose to mean?? (providing me with the verse would be apprieciated)

i am a Christian and VERY against racism, so this is bothering me a lot

Answer 1

The mormons also believe it was black skin. But they realized how stupid this was in their "holy book" so they changed it in 1978. Which of course begs the question, how can you change your inspired by god book?

Answer 2

It was after the flood of Noah's day and we don't know the full story I am sure there is more to it than that.
Genesis 9:20 So starts the story remember Noah was the only righteous man on the earth. But as soon as the flood was gone he planted a vineyard and got drunk and fell down.
Uncovering himself and his youngest son made fun of him.
So he said let him be cursed. Possible his youngest son had been giving him trouble for some time, this was the last straw.

But he did not mean all his future generations would be cursed that would be unreasonable. Why would skin color be a mark? None of that makes any sense. If they are using that scripture to foster prejudice they are really reaching.
Also in reading the story they all left there and there is no record of Ham's line of descent being slaves to anyone.
So because Noah said it doesn't mean God did it.
Maybe he didn't feel that need for him to be punished.
Sometimes parents get agrivated and say things.
Where is there any indication that he was ever a slave to his brothers?

Answer 3

False teaching about Ham has been used to justify slavery and other nonbiblical, racist attitudes. It is traditionally believed that the African nations are largely Hamitic, because the Cushites (Cush was a son of Ham—Gen. 10:6) are thought to have lived where Ethiopia is today. Genesis suggests that the dispersion was probably along family lines, and it may be that Ham’s descendants were on average darker than, say, Japheth’s. However, it could just as easily have been the other way around.

Ham had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. However, consider the descendants of Canaan.

The descendants of Canaan were some of the most wicked people to ever live on the earth—the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for instance. What is interesting to note is that the Bible seems to indicate, in Genesis 9:22, that when Ham was disrespectful to his father Noah, this involved some sort of sexual connotation.

It is indeed possible that Noah saw in Canaan the same sin problem that his father Ham had. Therefore, it seems that Noah understood that Canaan’s descendants would also reflect this rebellious nature. Remember, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for their sexual perversion.

The curse of Canaan has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color, but is in fact an example warning fathers to train their children in godly principles. If this is not done in one generation, then generations to come will express their rebellious nature as seen in the wickedness of Canaan’s descendants.

Answer 4

The verses you allude to are Genesis 9:24-29.

I have not heard about the KKK using this passage to support their ideology but something like that may have occurred as Ham’s descendents are said to be the ones that repopulated the African Continent after the flood.

It would be a major twisting of scripture (not unheard of) to use that as a foundation for racism. It was not God doing the cursing, it was Noah and he cursed Canaan, Ham's son (no mention of mark or color), which does gives credence to the destruction visited on the Canaanites.

Answer 5

Hams generations were cursed because of the disrespect that Ham showed to his father. It says nothing whatsoever about any colors or marks. People who use that don't even read the bible, much less serve God.
Cain did have a "mark" upon him after murdering his brother Abel. But again, the bible does not elaborate on what this was exactly. That mark was given in order to protect him from being attacked by others as he wandered the earth as an exile.
Scripture references are below..
GBU
P.S God loves all races!

Answer 6

There are parts of two stories here.

The first chronologically is the story of Cain and Abel.
In that story Cain killed Abel and got banished him from the garden of Eden. Cain thought his punishment was too severe, and that anyone who he would come across would want to kill him for what he did to Abel. God told him that he would put a mark on him and whoever saw the mark would not kill him. This story is in Genesis 4.

The second story is the one of Noah and Ham, one of his sons. In that story Ham went into Noah's tent and saw him drunk and naked. He came out and told Shem and Japheth, his brothers what he had seen and they picked up and blanket and walking backward placed the blanket on Noah to cover his nakedness. When Noah awoke he knew what had happened and he placed a curse not on ham but on one of Ham's sons. The curse was placed on Canaan who moved to modern day Israel and fathered the Canaanites. The curse was that Canaan and his descendants would become slaves to his brothers. This story can be found in Genesis 9:20-27

The funny part of all this is the only person that was black at this time was one of Ham's other sons named Cush which means black, and this story had nothing to do with Cush.

Cush had a son named Nimrod who built the tower of Babel. Cush eventually settled in what is now Ethiopia and fathered the Cushites.

grace2u

Answer 7

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.


Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.


Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The Bible only says that God cursed Ham's son, Canaan, and that he was to be a slave to his brothers. It does not say that a mark was placed on him (some people may confuse this story with the story of Cain). It also does not say that the curse would affect his descendants. We can't tell by these verses whether Canaan changed "color". The verse does say that Canaan would be the servant of Shem (father of the Semites, from which the Hebrews arose), but throughout scripture there is no mention of any "race" that is slave to the Hebrews. Mention of slaves in the OT were almost always independent indentured servants, who were to be released after 7 years. Unfortunately, many racists try to interpret this in such a way as to try to excuse slavery and racism.
The Bible says that God made "all men of one flesh". We are all descendants of Noah (and thus of Adam); we are all cousins; even the blackest African and the whitest Aryan are cousins, distantly related. They need to start treating them as family.

Answer 8

The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery is based on Genesis 9:25-27. According to the Bible, the worldwide flood had concluded and there were only 8 humans alive on earth: Noah, his wife, their six sons and daughters in law. Noah's son Ham had seen "the nakedness of his father." So, Noah laid a curse -- not on Ham, who was guilty of some type of indiscretion. The sin was transferred to Noah's grandson Canaan. Such transference of sin from a guilty to an innocent person or persons is unusual in the world's religious and secular moral codes. It is normally considered highly unethical. However, it appears in many biblical passages. The curse extended to all of Canaan's descendants:

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

Christians traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans became associated with this "curse of Ham." Thus slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable.

Answer 9

A mark? Nah, that means freckles. The god of Christianity hates people with freckles.

Just kidding. I thought Cain was the one with the mark. Here's what I found about Noah cursing his son Ham, and Ham's son Canaan.

From Genesis chapter 9:

The Sons of Noah
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [b]

27 May God extend the territory of Japheth [c] ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his [d] slave."

I think the KKK claim that Ham's descendants are the black folks. Apparently Japheth's descendants are the Europeans, and Shem's descendants are the middle easterners. I'm not sure where the far eastern folks fit in.

Answer 10

The only story I know of similar to that was the mark God placed Adam's son, Cain, to protect him as he wandered the earth. It was not described, but some think it was a different color skin. Even if this were true, how in the world does it advocate racism. Well I see how it would in theory, but really! The KKK will go directly to Hell for all the hatred they have spun and unleashed.

Answer 11

Here are the relevant verses:
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 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.
Gen 9:24 ¶ And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The problem is that Ham means hot, and it is from this little detail that scripture twisting false teachers deduce that the curse plus his name "Hot" means that he was given dark skin. The evidence is just not there in the scripture to support this erroneous view.

EDIT: Note that there is NO mention of a mark. Incidentally, as is correctly pointed out below, it was Canaan who received the curse, and it was Noah who did it, not God. Noah's likely reason? His son had defiled him and broken the relationship, so Noah was wishing that Ham's son would bring him grief in return.