Did Eve Have Sex With The Devil or Did She Just Eat Some Fruit? – Part 4 – Why the Curse on Canaan?

In part three I left it, where, according to the King James Bible, Noah’s wife is only referred to as “Mrs Noah” (my terminology), but who was she? As I showed in part three; in order for the line of Cain to bridge the flood one of the eight redeemed survivors that entered the ark had to be a descendant of Cain. A crucial point we also need to understand is that at this point in mankind’s history the tribal, clannish or better, the seed line is carried by the male side and it does not change to the female side until Sarah, Abraham’s first wife. So this means that the Adam/Sethitic line or the line of man is carried by Noah and his three sons. This, in turn, means that Noah’s daughters in law could also have been descendants of Cain, but we are not told. However, because the male side, at this juncture, carries the dynastic line, the genetic origins of these women are of no significance. The Sethitic line is carried by all three sons for they were all sons of Adam via Seth and therefore men. So this brings us back to the racial identity of Mrs Noah, for it is she who is the link pin to this fascinating story. Please note, too, for this is important; all the offspring of Noah’s three sons will carry the Sethitic line, but with one exception and I will return to this issue later in the article.  

Now as I also stated in part three, there is a woman mentioned in Genesis 4:22 by the name of Naamah who was the sister of Tubal-Cain so she was, most definitely, a descendant of Cain. The thing is, was she Noah’s wife? The answer, and suspiciously so once more, cannot be found in the King James Bible so we have no option but to look elsewhere for the evidence. Having looked elsewhere, what do you think we will find? Answer: Yes, Naamah was Noah’s wife according to the Midrash Genesis Rabbah which are ancient Judaic texts and from the Wikipedia we get:

“Genesis Rabba Bereshith Rabba is a religious text from Judaism’s classical period. It is a midrash (Hebrew for ‘an interpretation’) comprising a collection of ancient rabbinical homiletical interpretations of the book of Genesis (Bereshith in Hebrew).”

From another source we have verses 15-16 in chapter five of the Book of Jasher, which reads as follows:

Jasher 5:15 And thou shalt raise up seed, and thy children with thee, in the midst of the earth; and Noah went and took a wife, and he chose Naamah the daughter of Enoch, and she was five hundred and eighty years old. 16 And Noah was four hundred and ninety-eight years old, when he took Naamah for a wife.

The Book of Jasher is referred to as the ‘lost’ Book of Jasher and in modern terms dates from a translation of 1887. Interestingly, this book gets mentioned twice in the Holy Scriptures, so from this evidence alone we can assume that it has more than some validity and here are the Scriptures for your information:

Josh 10:13 (KJV) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?

2 Sam 1:18 (KJV)  (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

Here we can plainly see that the Book of Jasher is referred to as a reference of some importance and used as proof text or back-up evidence for the two historical events mentioned. It is being used as a source of validation, so we cannot just sweep it aside as a book of myths and/or fallacious additional material.  

OK, so with this proof and/or evidence in mind we will return to the Holy Scriptures where we read the account of Ham’s wickedness or his wicked sin perpetrated upon his father, Noah. Here again the King James Bible leaves much to be desired in its recording of this crucial event in mankind’s history. In effect it’s another of those dumbed down stories, like the fall in the Garden of Eden account. Both these accounts were written so as to mislead by not revealing the Truth of these sordid and evil events. Make no mistake; this solitary evil act by Ham would affect the outcome of this world’s history, for it was, without doubt, the Devil’s handiwork through Cain’s descendant, Naamah. So without further ado let’s copy the relevant Holy Scriptures here so that we can analyse them in detail:

Gen 9:18-27 (KJV) And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 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. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Now the first thing that becomes apparent in this short passage of Holy Scripture is the mentioning of Ham being Canaan’s father and it’s mentioned twice. Why, why not reveal Ham’s other sons and why not refer to Shem’s sons as well as Japheth’s sons? What is so special about this Canaan that he should be mentioned twice whilst all the other grandchildren of Noah are ignored completely; what’s it all about? Quite simply, Canaan is a very different ‘grandchild’ altogether and not a grandchild at all in the ordinary sense, and more of that later.

Before I move on I wish to counter some negative stuff that some commentators have written about Noah and his drunkenness in this story. Let me tell you; their attitude is extremely judgemental with some of them even suggesting that Noah had become an alcoholic and that his drunkenness was a regular occurrence. This is pure guess-work on their part and, at best, blasphemous arrogant conjecture. After the flood Noah became a husbandman, and, amongst other husbandry, had planted a vineyard and was no doubt celebrating the fruits of his labours. All this story line is telling us is that he obviously ended up drinking too much, but this is no reason to label the great man an alcoholic; a man who found grace in the Lord’s sight.  

None-the-more-for-that, whilst intoxicated, something happens to Noah and this ‘happening’ is so serious that it results in Ham’s son, Canaan, being cursed. This is no light matter when we consider that patriarchs usually like to bless their offspring, not curse them. (Please read the account of Jacob/Israel blessing his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, in Genesis 48) This event was tragic and traumatic for all concerned, including Shem and Japheth who had to literally cover their ‘father’s nakedness’. Now this occurrence leaves us with more questions. For instance, what was Ham trying to achieve here by involving his brothers? Did he boast about what he had done? Was this event symbolic of Adam and Eve’s aprons in the Garden? Was he trying to hide his guilt? Was he attempting a ‘cover-up’, (just as our corrupt rotten politicians do today) hoping that Noah would not find out? Notice, too, that it needs both his brothers to carry the covering garment, so we’re not talking about a flimsy single sheet that we would use today to cover one of our modern beds, this was a very wide garment indeed and most likely wide enough to cover two people, and herein lies the first evidence that we are not just dealing with Ham seeing his father’s nudity.

Here again we have a parallel with the Garden of Eden account, for the punishment does not fit the crime if we take it as it reads. Once again we are dealing with symbolism or turns of phrase that have a deeper or stronger meaning. In this story we are having to focus on the term “uncovered his father’s nakedness” and what it really means, just as we had to take another look at what the Biblical rendering was alluding to when it said that Eve “took of the ‘fruit’ and did eat”. So what was the real meaning of Ham “uncovering his father’s nakedness?” Fortunately, we don’t have look outside the Holy Scriptures for the answer of what this phrase means, for it is found within the pages of Leviticus:

Lev 18:8 (KJV) The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

Lev 20:11 (KJV) And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

When a man forms a permanent union with a woman they become one flesh in God’s sight and the Holy Scriptures from Leviticus cement this view. In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ confirms this:

Matt 19:5-6 (KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So here we can see the seriousness of Ham’s sin, for he did put asunder the union between his father and his mother. He saw his father’s nakedness by lying with and having incestuous sexual relations with his mother and thereby made her pregnant with Canaan. This is the only explanation there can be for the singling out of Canaan as the recipient of the curse and not Ham’s other sons. By doing this, Noah not only punished his son, but he punished his wife too, for no mother wishes to see harm come to her children. Now we know why the covering garment needed two men to carry it, for it most likely covered their mother’s nakedness as well as their father’s – if only symbolically and nothing else. It is also worth mentioning that Noah never knew his wife sexually again after this event.

Now what of the nature of this curse, for it clearly states that Canaan’s descendants would be slaves to Shem’s descendants and slaves to Japheth’s descendants, and, even worse, slaves of slaves. They would also feature big time in the future when Joshua led the Israelites into the land of Canaan and more or less killed them all apart from a few whom they took as slaves:

Josh 16:10 (KJV) And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.

“The Ephraimites” in this verse represents the ten tribes of Israel, not just the tribe of Ephraim alone. Joshua was an Ephraimite. Also, the use of the word Ephraimites is used to differentiate between them and the twelve tribes which would have included Judah and Levi. In particular, though, for us in this latter day age it refers to England, her Commonwealth and Anglo-Saxon peoples of the USA where the slavery of Canaanites (black people) was at its greatest during the time period from the 16^th to the 20^th centuries – segregation was a type of slavery or a system where Canaanites were serving under tribute. How do we know that the Canaanites were black people? Easy, Ham in the Egyptian language means ‘brown or reddish brown’ and Cush, one of Ham’s other sons, means ‘black’ in the Hebrew language. I cover this subject in more detail in my series of articles entitled “Was the Lord Jesus Christ a Long Haired Effeminate Looking Wimp?” (Coming soon) These articles are a must read if you want to find out about the counterfeit Christian religious Jesus who, in Truth, does not exist.

Now were all Canaanites black; obviously not, because the Romans were descended from Canaan, as were the Egyptians (modern Spaniards or Hispanics) who were brown rather that black? We then have the Babylonians (modern Italians; the slang for Italians is Ities from the Hitites) who are also brown and, notice; all these peoples, predominantly, have black hair. Then, finally, we have the Canaanite Jews who originate from a forbidden and unholy union between the patriarch Judah and a Canaanitess named Shuah as recorded in Genesis 38. Again, black hair predominates amongst Canaanite Jews or those of the dispersion. Have you ever noticed how the Orthodox Jews i.e. Canaanite Jews always wear black – black suits, black coats and black Homburg hats – just a coincidence; I think not? 

The point I am making here is that there are white Canaanites, black Canaanites and there are yellow Canaanites. Canaan’s descendants interbred with all the races. This should not surprise us because the original sin was an act of racial interbreeding i.e. Eve and the Devil.

As mentioned earlier in this series we have people in Britain and the USA named Cain who are white; even Senator McCain, mentioned in part 3, whose name actually means “son of Cain” who not long ago attempted to reach the Whitehouse in the last election. This evidence alone proves that the line of Cain is still with us today, but do they still carry the ‘Mark of Cain’? Oh yes, most definitely, and I will cover this most important subject in my next article.     

OK, to round off, I will return to the point I made earlier about Noah’s sons and grandsons all being of the Sethitic line with one exception and of course that one exception was Canaan who carried Cain’s blood through the flood via the evil sin of his parents – Ham and his Cainite mother, Naamah. The Lord then had to curse Canaan through Noah just as he had to curse all of mankind through Adam and Eve’s sin by throwing them out of the Garden of Eden. Bad blood has to carry a curse, for it cannot find favour in the Father’s sight unless it’s redeemed by the Lord’s blood – His death and resurrection.

As a final point do not listen to mainstream Christians who will tell you that a curse placed upon a certain individual all those years ago cannot stand today or be applicable to people descended from him, living today, because it does. If this is not so, how is it when I tend my garden I am frequently a victim of thorns, briers and thistles and I perspire profusely across my brow too? How is it also that women still carry the same burden of pain in child birth as did Eve because of her original sin. These things are a good reminder of the fallen condition or of the curses placed upon all mankind – 1,500 years before the curse on Canaan, so don’t listen to any of their intellectual clap trap and pathetic attempts at explaining Biblical Truth away.

http://isthefathercallingyoutohisson.wordpress.com/