Comments on: Creation Museum Says Black People Are Cursed by Noah

By: Gen. 9-10: Ham Bears the Sins of His Father | REAL Bible Stories

Gen. 9-10: Ham Bears the Sins of His Father | REAL Bible Stories — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:47:23 +0000

[...] This article at the Paliban Daily explains the Creation Museum’s take on the subject. You see, Canaan — son of Ham, the servant of servants — moved into what is now northern Africa. [...]

By: Trinity

Trinity — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:21:44 +0000

Yeah… Canaan did not go to Africa. Is that clear enough?
The Bible clearly states that Ham had four sons. History clearly teaches that the Land of Canaan is NOT in Africa. Do you deny this?
For the love of life Jenny… why are you trying to defend these two idiots? The poster says or implies nothing about the Hamite Theory. The poster is consistent with what the Bible teaches… that descendents of Ham; Cush, Mizraim, and Put, migrated to Africa. It also teaches that Canaan (the one who was cursed and is the foundational character in the Hamite Theory for the racist subjugation of Black – cursed Africans) never migrated to Africa.
Pastor Mikey and Sleazy Meyers both knew this when they tried to tie the poster and the theory together. They are lying… pure and simple, but yet… here is Jenny… trying to defend what is obvious to everyone else.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:02:09 +0000

The poster says, clearly, that the descendants of Ham, of which Canaan was one, went into Africa. Do you deny this?

By: Trinity

Trinity — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:34:03 +0000

and Canaan went where?
Ham had four boys Jenny… that doesn’t mean all of them went to Africa.
Remember… Canaan is not in Africa!!! It is Palestine… Israel today. Hence… no curse. Hence… the poster doesn’t imply Hamite Theory. Hence… Mikey and PZ are lying.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:27:07 +0000

Trinity, notice the poster clearly shows “Descendants of Ham” going into Africa.

Canaan was a descendant of whom?

By: Trinity

Trinity — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:02:35 +0000

Notice… your citation states:
“During the Middle Ages, this was interpreted to define Ham as the ancestor of all Africans.” This much might be true… but it has nothing to do with the cursed peoples… it has nothing to do with what AiG teaches or what the poster implies.
The point is Ms. Jenny, Pastor Mikey and Sir Sleazy Meyers are both lying about what the Answers in Genesis poster implies and what the Bible has to say about said theory.
Either way, they are wrong. The poster says nothing about Canaan going to Africa. The Bible says nothing about Canaan going to Africa. So, my dear, how in the hell does this poster imply the ‘cursed peoples’ going to Africa? The fact of the matter is… it doesn’t. So, when Mikey says it does… he is lying. When Sleazy Meyers insists that AiG is promoting the Hamite Theory… he is lying. Both are liars then.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:49:41 +0000

Trinity, dear, I suggest you do a little homework on the Hamitic theory. Here's a reference which you might respect: Wikipedia

The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples believed to have been descended from the biblical Ham, one of the Sons of Noah. When Ham dishonors his father, Noah pronounces a curse on him, stating that the descendents of his son Canaan will be "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites and Phut the Libyans.[1] During the Middle Ages, this was interpreted to define Ham as the ancestor of all Africans. The curse was regularly interpreted as having created visible racial characteristics in Ham's offspring, notably black skin. According to Bernard Lewis, the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and are sinful with a degenerate progeny."[2] Both Arab and later European and American slave traders used this story to justify African slavery.[3][4]

By: Trinity

Trinity — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:38:24 +0000

Isn’t this a gem.

Perhaps Jenny ought to look at the poster… a second… or (based on her post) three or perhaps four more times before joining the intellectual taxonomical classification as Pastor Mikey (idiot).

If you look at the poster… it states “Descendants of Ham”. Canaan, was indeed a descendant of Ham Jenny dear. However, he did have some brothers (Gen 10:6 – Cush, Mizraim, and Put) who migrated into Africa. Canaan stayed in Arabia Jenny . That is why they call it Cush… I mean… Mizraim… Put… um… OK… uh… yeah, they call it Canaan. This is why Pastor Mikey and that Sleazy Meyers who wrote the article in the first place have no business equating this poster with the Hamite theory and more importantly.. Mikey… when he wrote “According to the Creation Museum, Canaan and his descendants populated Africa. They were called [the nation of] Canaan, or Canaanites” is either lying or an idiot… just like ole Trinity wrote.

Does this help-ya?

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:50:57 +0000

I agree that throwing food and medical aid into overpopulated and unstable countries doesn’t help much. I suggest we tie food aid to population management strategies.

If they can’t bring their populations under control, they will never be stable . . . they will always fight over resources.

By: Rhyan

Rhyan — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:35:26 +0000

Being as how food and medical aid doesnt seem to be making a heck of a lot of difference in 3rd world hell holes where rebel armies, corrupt governments and criminal gangs steal the shipments, maybe missionaries and Bibles would be a better alternative. Course we could also send typically arrogant smart mouthed atheists in and let them come up with some solutions. They do do solutions right? Not just whine?