Talk:Ham (son of Noah)

message: The words Ham or Cham and Khem are the same and mean the same. There is acknowledgement of that fact at another Wikipedia page, ironically denouncing the 'Black Egyptians' 'hypothesis', yet admitting that Khemet means 'the black land'. 
"Mainstream scholars hold that kmt means "the black land" or "the black place", and that this is a reference to the fertile black soil which was washed down from Central Africa by the annual Nile inundation. By contrast the barren desert outside the narrow confines of the Nile watercourse was called dšrt (conventionally pronounced deshret) or "the red land".[103][108] Raymond Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian translates kmt into "Egyptians",[109] Gardiner translates it as "the Black Land, Egypt".[110]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Egyptian_hypothesis#Kemet 
So, Khem means black. Yet Ham is portrayed... as a white guy? I don't know how many Wikipedia rules this kind of misrepresentation is in violation of, so you figure that out. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And more, of course: "The Egyptian hieroglyph for "black" in Gardiner's sign list is numbered I6. Its phonetic value is km. The Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache-(Dictionary of the Egyptian Language) lists no less than 24 different terms of km indicating 'black' such as black stone, metal, wood, hair, eyes, and animals.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Km_(hieroglyph) 83.84.100.133 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Course Ham/Cham/Khem means Black 

message: Here is an interesting finding about Ham. A grave situated in Pakistan is claimed to be of Ham. This grave is 78 feet long. Photos of this grave can be seen on an Urdu blog here: http://saadblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/ham-son-of-noah/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.61.1 (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grave of Ham 

message: This is a completely inappropriate, and I'm editing out most of the article.  Most of it has no real citable basis in fact, and a lot of it sounds like KKK and other kinds of white-supremacist creationist nonsense. Bar fly high (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White supremacy? 

message: This was listed under the discussion section of the Noah article, and I figure it also appropriately belongs here, and parts of this discussion could probably be posted in the actual article since it has references:
I am not sure where I read this, so for any of you fanatics out there that have the time to research this, here it goes:
Ham was cursed not because he saw his father naked, but because he stole his garment, which was the same garment that was given to Adam (Genesis 3:21) when he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This garment also represented the beginning of animal sacrifice (because it was a coat of skin - which came from an animal) to represent the coming of a Savior to be sacrificed for the sins of all mankind (and although an alter is not mentioned, this is the first reference to an alter being used for sacrifice - this being the same type of sacrifice that was made by Abel, Noah, and many others including Moses - Genesis 4:4, Genesis 9:9, Exodus 20:24 as well as many others). The making of this coat would have been the first sacrifice of a living creature. This coat was also said to be a symbol to all creatures not to harm Adam, which is infered in Genesis 9:2 when God tells Noah that all animals will fear him.
It was also said in the book that I got this information from that Nimrod "a mighty hunter," who was a descendant of Ham (Genesis 10:8-9), may have used this garment to lure animals to him so that he could slay them. This idea also came from Genesis 9:2 when it says "into your hands are all [animals] delivered." If this were the case, it would also explain how Noah was able to get so many different animals in the ark.
Well, there it is. Obviously it is not word for word. Sorry I don't own the book where I read this anymore. I don't remember its title or anything. Despite that I don't own the book anymore, and am unsure who first gave rise to this idea, it is obvious that there is some consideration to be made in reference to the ideas presented here.
I mean, to even consider that such a hefty curse would be put upon someone for seeing a naked man (much less his own father) is somewhat naive.
Nammerama 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curse of Ham 

message: A stolen garment? Castration? Homosexual acts upon ones own father? All speculation and most probably untrue, at the very least these speculations should stay on the discussion page. As far as I can see the Bible is a highly descriptive book that if read properly (that is through the view of the author), you can gain proper understanding of it, but if you read it to justify your own ends, you will come up with false "facts".
There is no mention of any of the things above, in, or near the paragraphs containing the story of Ham. In context it was simply that he either ridiculed his father (Noah), or Noah took Hams actions harshly and cursed him harshly due to drunken short mindedness; possibly both. Maybe it was just that he saw his nakedness and nothing else, something in the culture maybe? They were only a few generations away from Adam & Eve (who tried to hide their nakedness from God).
As for the 4th son and castration claims, it's much more likely that is to do with the passing of curses down to the third and fourth generation and blessings up to a thousand generations (Somewhere in the early part of the old testament, cannot remember where, I think between Exodus and Leviticus). Besides I think Noah would of WOKE UP if Ham CHOPPED his BITS off or fondled him in any way! 
In fact I agree with the earlier comment made about the article sounding like some sort of KKK nonsense and should be immediately removed.
P.S. Although Noah was a good man, there is no mention that he was perfect and knew how to distribute blessings and curses fairly. In fact Noah's goodness compared to the men of the old world (pre-flood) would suggest that it was relatively easy to be good, they were pretty bad people (the thoughts of man were evil continuously). Also a fathers blessing will stand, even if he is wrong or deceived, just look at the story of Jacob, Esau & Isaac. CONTEXT IS VERY IMPORTANT! Please remember this. Thank you. 195.171.94.254 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The curse of Ham Speculation? 

message: I must admit that I love how European scholars combine analytics and presumption in Indo-European regards, yet tend 
to resort to absurd rejectionism toward Afro-Asiatic regards.   We all tend see what we want to see,and tend to hear 
what we want to hear.  So, you have a right to believe that Herodotus incorrectly described what he saw as Ethiopian
as late as 5th Century BCE.  To this group of Ladies and Gentlemen- who know better than a source, at least that makes 
you all consistent in the other idea that the Egyptians themselves did not understand what color to paint with when 
depicting themselves. Dare a claim begin, to state that European paintings are not of fair-skin people, but rather 
the Soil is Tan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.231 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Theory of the Brown Crayon 

message: Oh just one more thing. The only reference you need to discuss the writings of the Bible is THE BIBLE! It is also good cross reference the translations to get a clearer perspective. But whatever White Supremacist /New Age/Alien theology, people refer to is probably wrong. 195.171.94.254 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbo 

message: Noah said "cursed be Canaan," SPECIFICALLY, Canaan himself, Ham's youngest son.  When the Bible wants to curse people, it is very clear, as to who is being cursed, numbers, and nations.  "Cursed be the nation of...."  "Cursed be the people...." where does it say "cursed be Canaan's descendants?"  I mean, considering that within the Bible itself, there are numerous other places that SPECIFICALLY curse ENTIRE NATIONS, AND WHOLE PEOPLE in what racist mind did the idea sneak in, that black people should be enslaved when Noah was cursing only one person?  Assuming, Canaan is the ancestor of black people, or Ham at least, Noah would have cursed like this, given the Bible's tendencies "Cursed be Canaan and his offspring!"  Where does it say that?  Seriously man, black people just seem to have the most rotten luck in the world; assuming they descend from Ham, the text clearly states that the curse falls on Canaan specifically.  Again when the Bible wants to curse an entire race, it DOES NOT pull punches about it, just pointing that out.
67.148.120.105 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now Hold on a minute 

message: How helpful is to have a date for Ham's birth in the info-box at the top of the page? Even one that is based on Anno Mundi? We know that there was no historical figure called Ham, so what is the point in giving misleading detail that suggests we can fit him into the historica narrative. Even if we go with the AM suggestion, it's all rather arbitary based on what this or that individual thinks is a fair span for a man's life. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the info in the infobox was not very helpful. But what we need is a section giving the various views of history regarding the dating of Ham.  The view that he did not exist is but one POV.  There are also several large Churches and other religions holding views of history that he did live, and per NPOV we don't "know" anything about whose POV or competing view of history is correct. For an article on a Biblical figure, we need sources explaining what the Masoretic, Samaritan, Septuagint, Jubilees and other chronologies are for Ham, and who holds to each POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has added the birthdate back into the info box. What is the value of having this so predominant? The figure of Ham did not exist in human history - despite what the faith position of many people may be. This is no about POV - this is about the facts. There is no archaeological or historical evidence to support such a claim. What's even more comic is that the date is so precise - to the year! I don't mind having the claim put in the main body of the text (along with an explanation of context); but to have it in the infobox upfront gives the date a dignity to which it is not entitled. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The info box with the date is highly misleading. We all know that Ham didn't exist in reality and so pretending that you can fix him at a historical point of time is rather silly. That said if someone wants to add a sentence to explain that some people in the past have used a numbering system based on a highly literal reading of the Bible and thus have put forward a date for Ham's birth (AM) then I can go with that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try this another way. Who has specifically made the claim that the birth date of Ham (in the context of Biblical creationist theory) is 1557AM please? Can we reference this fact. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: Why is that pic of a white dude after the Germanic takeover of Europe?  Come on, we know that Wiki is a place for propaganda, but this is one type that lies cannot even replace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.201.227 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because on Wikipedia, only a white view of the world is promoted. So, Ham becomes white, black/burnt becomes white, the blackamoors become whiteamoors, George Washington Bush the black founder of the Washington Territories/Washington State, whose photo we have, becomes a white guy from India, etc. I think it has to do with the fact that many of the moderators are from the Deep South. Jimmy Wales is from Huntsville, Alabama. So I guess they think they can get away with any bs. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: BS like claiming that the picture of George Washington Bush, who was mixed race, is that of a white guy from India? You can't be bothered to find a picture you like can you? --Doug Weller talk 08:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Douglas, you are full of shit. You have no talent, you don't know what you are talking about, and you have an agenda.
1. Ham
Meaning.
https://biblehub.com/topical/h/ham.htm
ATS Bible Dictionary
Ham
1. Burnt, swarthy, black, A son of Noah, Genesis 5:32 7:13 9:18 10:1. The impiety revealed in his conduct towards his father, drew upon him, or rather, according to the Bible statement, on his son Canaan, a prophetic malediction, Genesis 9:20-27. Ham was the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan, that is, the ancestor of the Canaanites, Southern Arabians, Ethiopians, Egyptians, and the Africans in general, Genesis 10:6-20.
2. A poetical name for Egypt, Psalm 78:51 106:22.
3. An unknown place of the Zuzim, Genesis 14:5.
2. George Washington Bush - the photograph. 
A photograph of George Washington Bush, the founder of the Washington Territories, which later became Washington State. He was black. Mixed race doesn't mean anything. The 'one drop rule' doesn't even apply, or the South Carolina 1/8th or more rule. Here is the photograph.
https://ohm-media.s3.amazonaws.com/article_images/2017/dangerous-subjects.jpg
https://oregonhumanities.org/rll/magazine/skin-summer-2013/dangerous-subjects/
Here is the sketch of the photograph that is on Wikipedia.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/George_Washington_Bush.jpg 
So you tell me who has an agenda. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Lol. The answer to that is obvious. As for Bush, whose mother was Scots/Irish, if a free photo is available, great. The drawing doesn't make him look "white". But then he isn't "black" or "white", distinctions which you obviously feel as much more important than I do. Ham of course never existed. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

text: But if that's you that wrote elsewhere there are no races, only ethnicities, this seems a silly discussion and I don't see why you want to call Bush black. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy-pasting bits of a Bible dictionary from 1859 doesn't particularly help. Hebrew etymologies from the 19th century are often just guesses. And looking up "Deluge" in the ATS Bible Dictionary leads to a discussion of how the Flood is a real event dateable to 2348 BC, so that should give some idea what kind of quality source we're dealing with there. Alephb (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming there's some sarcasm there, but seriously, it's a real interesting read over in the "Historicity" section of the Noah's ark article, where it goes through how the 1777, 1860, and 1910 editions of Encyclopaedia Brittanica gradually moved from full-blown creationism, to a compromise position, to finally treating the Deluge as myth. Alephb (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No sarcasm. I have met several religious nuts in my lifetime, but not someone seriously believing that the Book of Genesis is not mythical. Even at Dimotiko, we were taught about human prehistory and findings from paleontology. Dimadick (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, here in the Western hemisphere creationism is alive and well: I've lived in Latin  America and North America my whole life, and there's creationists all over the place. I'm gonna shut up now before I get slapped with a warning for WP:FORUM. Alephb (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic of Ham/Noah? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ham (son of Noah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222104140/http://jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2007-weekly/nos-11-11-2007/foo.htm to http://jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2007-weekly/nos-11-11-2007/foo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sketch included on the page is of a white dude. Ham was known for being black. That's why he was called Ham. Also, the sons of Ham were: Misraim (Egypt), Canaan (Levant), Cush (Sudan) and Phut (Somalia or Libya). In effect, making the Nile Valley and Levant the land of the sons of Ham. So, how ridiculous was it to maintain that Khemet only referred to the 'black land', and couldn't have possibly meant the 'land of the blacks'. This says more about 19th and 20th century American anxieties about 'race' than is says about what is printed in the bible. According to the bible, the Nile Valley and Levant are the land of the sons of Ham or Khem. Egypt is generally referred to as Khemet, the land of Khem. In the bible, Ham literally refers to one of sons of Noah, yet Khemet couldn't possibly refer to people, only the land. What a desperate argument from Mary Lefkowitz that was. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Mary Lefkowitz is cited anywhere in the article. Anyhow, there's all kinds of theories about Ham out there, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on certain types of sources, the kind spelled out at the policy page WP:RS. So, for example, you say, "Ham was known for being black." For that kind of claim to be put in the article, we'd need reliable sources that say so. Alephb (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, from the Levant obviously doesn't mean "black". But a good picture of him looking Egyptian/Middle East would be fine. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Becomes White On Wikipedia 

message: Please take a look at WP:EW and WP:BRD. If you see that another editor disagrees, you are supposed to discuss, and not to start an edit war. Gen 9:24 says that Ham was "bnô haQatan" which might mean "his youngest son", but can also mean "his insignificant son" or just "his young son". Sem, Ham and Japhet are always mentioned in that order. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest son ? 

message: If my understanding is correct, The Gnostic Bible is the modern edition of an old text. That means, it is a primary source (see WP:PSTS), which you sum up. Your statement about the uniqueness also seems to be original research (see: WP:OR). Is my understanding correct ? Rsk6400 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While it does contain translations of old texts, there are parts in the "Gnostic Bible" edition where the author gives intros to the content of the texts. If you are referring to the edit I made on :Shem, the specific quote I got the idea of it having uniqueness is "The document defies any obvious classification: though gnostic, it shares few features with other Sethian literature". You might be able to see part of the page I got the information from by clicking this link. Moodgenerator (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion. I was distracted while writing my comment. Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to add quote and link to the article (the one about Shem, not this one ;-). Rsk6400 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnosticism