A racist God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#81
Are you kidding me?

or there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. 15To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being [d]abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

"A prophet of their own" is not a Cretan. He is one of these of the circumcision (judaisers) who's mouths must be stopped. Paul is not agreeing with this "prophet". "This testimony is true" is not the testimony of the prophet- it is Paul's testimony about him which he is saying is true.
Read it again more carefully. The Cretans were those of wicked sins, one of their own prophets said this of them. They are being warned against the Judaizers who were leading them astray. The prophet is know by name in secular history:

"Epimenides of Phæstus, or Gnossus, in Crete, about 600. He was sent for to purify Athens from its pollution occasioned by Cylon. He was regarded as a diviner and prophet. The words here are taken probably from his treatise "concerning oracles." Paul also quotes from two other heathen writers, ARATUS (Ac 17:28) and MENANDER (1Co 15:33), but he does not honor them so far as even to mention their names." Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary.

"It was a Cretan prophet, one of their own countrymen, who said, ‘Cretans were ever liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons’— and how truly he spoke! All the more reason why you should rebuke them sharply, so that they may be restored to a sound faith, instead of paying heed to Jewish myths and to human commandments, the work of those who turn their backs on the truth." (Titus 1:12-14, REB)

Maybe too much turkey made you sleepy and you were having synapse lapses! :)
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#82
The OT told of people, warts and all. We are not to use their life to decide what is or isn't sin for even David who was dearly loved by the Lord sinned over and over.

Even Paul in the NT told of sinning, for he said he did what he did not want to do.
Blik, when David sinned with Bathsheba, we know definitely he sinned. If the love recorded between David and Jonathan had been a sin, we would have known it from the word of God. The love between David and Jonathan has been viewed as wonderful down through the centuries. The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge reads of it: "Friendship is an entire sameness, and one soul: a friend is another self."
 
Jul 3, 2015
38,728
15,478
113
#83
Paul did not hesitate to call a certain people, the Cretans, names in v12 when he says the Cretan prophet was true in his descriptions of the people of Crete. But, there is no question the three sins listed are clearly seen as sin in Scripture. But you list "gays" without any description whatever of the sin you see that fits the biblical definition of sin. All men are sinners, even gays; but gays are not specifically sinners because they love other males. So, Christians run the risk of being called "bigots" for that reason.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
******
We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching 11 that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
******
For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
******
And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling—these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. 7 In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Yet in the same way these dreamers defile their bodies, reject authority, and slander glorious beings.


 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#84
where is your evidence

lol
you just saying stuff.

Is it in th Bible? no. This is a Bible discussion forum, What do you mean 'known to be black'. Had black hair? Had black skin? Had black eyes? or something else?

Its never mentioned, What is mentioned is that Esau was RED. And the edomites were somehow red.
The Strong's entry on Ham reads:

H2526 חָם Cham (chawm) n/l.
1. hot (from the tropical habitat).
2. Cham, a son of Noah.
3. (as a patronymic) his descendants or their country.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reads:

"2. Ham as a Nationality:

The name given, in Ps 105:23; Ps 105:17; Ps 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former."

That seems to be the argument for Ham being the father of the black race. Whether it is reading too much between the lines is another matter.
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#85
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
******
We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching 11 that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
******
For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
******
And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling—these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. 7 In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire. 8 Yet in the same way these dreamers defile their bodies, reject authority, and slander glorious beings.
Can you explain why you decided to quote a translation that reads "sexually immoral" instead of "fornicators"? Also, why you choose this particular translation because it reads "homosexuals". You must have a legitimate basis to choose that particular translation. I am more literal as in the NRSV:

"fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching" (1Tim 1:10, NRSV)

I can defend my choice of the NRSV for rendering it "fornicators, sodomites". Can you defend your choice of whatever translation you are using other than you start with the presupposition that all forms of homosexual conduct is sin so you choose such a translation?
 
Jul 3, 2015
38,728
15,478
113
#86
Can you explain why you decided to quote a translation that reads "sexually immoral" instead of "fornicators"? Also, why you choose this particular translation because it reads "homosexuals". You must have a legitimate basis to choose that particular translation. I am more literal as in the NRSV:

"fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching" (1Tim 1:10, NRSV)

I can defend my choice of the NRSV for rendering it "fornicators, sodomites". Can you defend your choice of whatever translation you are using other than you start with the presupposition that all forms of homosexual conduct is sin so you choose such a translation?
It is the Berean Study Bible. Fornication is, simply put, immoral sexual behavior.

In the New Testament the word translated as fornication comes from the Greek word porneia
which includes: pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, homosexuality/lesbianism, and bestiality.


The Greek word which is used here for immorality is the word πορνεία (porneia).
Our English word pornography derives from porneia. During the fourth century,
the Greek text of the Bible was translated into Latin in a work we call the Vulgate.


In the Vulgate, the Greek word, porneia, was translated to the Latin word, fornicati,
which is where we get the word fornication. The word fornication is found in the
King James Bible, but modern, more accurate translations, like the NASB and ESV,
opt to simply translate it to immorality.


* * * * * * * * *

Concerning this translation (from gotquestions):

The Berean Study Bible (BSB) is a Bible translation published in 2016 by the Bible Hub.
The translation team was comprised by scholars from the Bible Hub and the Discover Bible.


The Berean Study Bible seeks to connect readers with the Greek and Hebrew root words and
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to
offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#87
It is the Berean Study Bible. Fornication is, simply put, immoral sexual behavior.

In the New Testament the word translated as fornication comes from the Greek word porneia
which includes: pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, homosexuality/lesbianism, and bestiality.


The Greek word which is used here for immorality is the word πορνεία (porneia).
Our English word pornography derives from porneia. During the fourth century,
the Greek text of the Bible was translated into Latin in a work we call the Vulgate.


In the Vulgate, the Greek word, porneia, was translated to the Latin word, fornicati,
which is where we get the word fornication. The word fornication is found in the
King James Bible, but modern, more accurate translations, like the NASB and ESV,
opt to simply translate it to immorality.


* * * * * * * * *

Concerning this translation (from gotquestions):

The Berean Study Bible (BSB) is a Bible translation published in 2016 by the Bible Hub.
The translation team was comprised by scholars from the Bible Hub and the Discover Bible.


The Berean Study Bible seeks to connect readers with the Greek and Hebrew root words and
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to
offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.
No, your statement; "Fornication is, simply put, immoral sexual behavior" is wrong! In fact, in both 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 the sodomite is distinguished from the fornicators. In the places in Scripture where fornication is used and the genders indicated, it is never male to male, regardless how the word was sometimes used in Classical Greek. Frankly, the translation "immoral sexual behavior" is a ridiculous translation for it let's each individual make up his own mind what is sexually immoral but it seems most modern translations use that. God does not let us make up our own mind on such a matter, nor does He obligate us to accept what others wish to tell us what it means. Some say unmarried boys with girls shacking up together is not "sexually immoral". Maybe one thinks any sex between man and wife other than copulation for procreation is "sexually immoral"!

You write: "The word fornication is found in the King James Bible, but modern, more accurate translations, like the NASB and ESV, opt to simply translate it to immorality." I do not trust the NASB or the ESV on the right-wing religious/political matters.

The NASB77 rendered Ex. 21:22 as "miscarriage" and when it was learned that derailed the idea of a human being existing at conception, the NASB95 changed it to: "gives birth prematurely" and you'll find the ESV translates in a similar manner. The modern evangelical versions translate to support their preconceived belief on the matter of the origin of the soul, as well as the matter of whether in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 is "sodomite" or is "homosexual" the meaning? With the modern translations, I'll stay with the RSV 2nd Edition, NRSV and REB. But for critical Bible study I will stick with the KJV/ERV and look to the men of God out of the past.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#88
Under the nature of his "old man." When Paul wrote Romans 7, he was under the influence of the "New Man." Hence, he wrote of the Sinful Nature being cut away in Colossians 2:11. Context is key, here.
I do not follow your argument. You say "Context is key" but you have jumped from Romans 7 to Colossians 2. What are you saying?
 
Jul 3, 2015
38,728
15,478
113
#89
No, your statement; "Fornication is, simply put, immoral sexual behavior" is wrong!
Is fornication moral sexual behavior in your view, then?

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts."
... dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...

Do you really believe this is not about homosexuality???
 
Jul 3, 2015
38,728
15,478
113
#90
Address the usage of Berean Study Bible please. It is what I quoted
and what you asked about, and I defended it as you asked me to.


The Berean Study Bible seeks to connect readers with the Greek and Hebrew root words and
meanings in an easy-to-read format. The study Bible merges two previous translations, the
Berean Literal Bible and the Berean Interlinear Bible. The Berean Study Bible was created to

offer an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts in a reader-friendly format.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
6,247
1,949
113
#91
Under the nature of his "old man." When Paul wrote Romans 7, he was under the influence of the "New Man." Hence, he wrote of the Sinful Nature being cut away in Colossians 2:11. Context is key, here.
You are looking at scripture as a fleshly person, not as a spiritual message from the Lord.

All scripture tells of literal happenings, and we are to know that is the truth of what we read. All scripture, at the very same time, is speaking of things of the spirit, and we are to learn the spiritual message.

Paul was speaking of a truth from the Lord and "under the influence" of God. Don't belittle that by assuming another influence, even of this "new man: you call it. He was telling you of something he experienced, and he was ALSO telling you of a spiritual truth. It is the same as what we are to read when we read of the life of David.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
6,247
1,949
113
#92
I wish people one day will realise that black or white is nothing before God because we are spirits clothed in the body and spirits apparently have no color or race,Black or white we shall all die and stand before God and account for all that we are doing today,if you are christian and racist,you have to revise your understanding of God’s plan for mankind because it goes beyond the colors!!
So true. God sees beyond the gentile and Israel even that we make so much of with this "Israel only" bull that people speak of.

God uses what we understand, being in the flesh, to teach us reality of the spirit, but God is a God of the spirit of all man. God created Israel in order to reach all men.
 
Feb 20, 2021
2,110
845
113
#93
I do not follow your argument. You say "Context is key" but you have jumped from Romans 7 to Colossians 2. What are you saying?
I understand your predicament. I've never heard a pastor preach the Truth, so few seem to "get it."

Paul wrote about the influence of the Sinful Nature in Romans chapter seven, but in Colossians, Paul wrote about how that Nature is cut away by Christ, thus, Paul could not have been under the control of the Sinful Nature when he wrote chapter 7.

Romans 7:5, 18 NLT - "When we were controlled by our old nature, sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced a harvest of sinful deeds, resulting in death. ... 18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't."

Above, Paul is referring to his "old" Sinful Nature. Below, he tells of how that Nature is cut out by Christ

Colossians 2:11 NLT - "When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature."

Have a good day . . .
 
Feb 20, 2021
2,110
845
113
#94
You are looking at scripture as a fleshly person, not as a spiritual message from the Lord.

All scripture tells of literal happenings, and we are to know that is the truth of what we read. All scripture, at the very same time, is speaking of things of the spirit, and we are to learn the spiritual message.

Paul was speaking of a truth from the Lord and "under the influence" of God. Don't belittle that by assuming another influence, even of this "new man: you call it. He was telling you of something he experienced, and he was ALSO telling you of a spiritual truth. It is the same as what we are to read when we read of the life of David.
I understand your predicament. I've never heard a pastor preach the Truth, so few seem to "get it."

Paul wrote about the influence of the Sinful Nature in Romans chapter seven, but in Colossians, Paul wrote about how that Nature is cut away by Christ, thus, Paul could not have been under the control of the Sinful Nature when he wrote chapter 7.

Romans 7:5, 18 NLT - "When we were controlled by our old nature, sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced a harvest of sinful deeds, resulting in death. ... 18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't."

Above, Paul is referring to his "old" Sinful Nature. Below, he tells of how that Nature is cut out by Christ

Colossians 2:11 NLT - "When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature."
 
Jul 4, 2021
326
175
43
#95
All the more reason why you should rebuke them sharply, so that they may be restored to a sound faith, instead of paying heed to Jewish myths and to human commandments, the work of those who turn their backs on the truth." (Titus 1:12-14, REB)
Does that really make sense to you? Rebuke the Cretans for being lazy, lying, beasts... so that they won't believe jewish fables? How does that follow?
Wouldn't the Judaisers also rebuke the Cretans for being lazy, lying beasts (and particularly in this generalizing manner) in order to convince them they needed to be circumcised and become Jewish?

The instances of Paul referring to Greek poets in other epistles makes sense because he is talking to people that might be familiar with that material in order to make it easy for them to understand him.
Why would Paul make a reference to a Cretan "Prophet" of Jupiter from over 600 years prior in a letter to Titus- to explain to Titus- that Cretans were liars? All men without Christ are liars, and Titus knows this because he is a Christian.

I don't think Paul would agree with Epimenedes at all- Epimenedes called them lazy, lying beasts because they said Jupiter was dead... (which might actually even be true if the myths of Jupiter were originally about an actual person). I highly doubt that he was the first one, or the only one to say this about the Cretans. I'm pretty sure the subject of the end of Titus 1 is the gainsayers and Judaisers- and not the Cretans in general.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
3,243
297
83
#96
JustbyFaith, you have quoted many dictionaries and lexicons, but you have not put it into a comprehensible or coherent presentation or argument. I've found that once having a dictionary definition or lexicon application in various verses, I need to examine how a word is used by an author or under the applicable covenant and put it into the flow of context. I know that in talking with other Christians who hold to the church traditional view as you seem to have, we end up talking past each other so much. There are some interesting statements by early fathers in the faith that shows early church understanding of the sin does not match the situation of two male friends sharing companionship and love, mutual emotional support and even sexual intimacy:

Justin Martyr:
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Chrysostom(347-407 AD:
“[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced."

I believe there is an old saying about throwing the baby out with the bath water. I believe the church has erred in how they have tried to combat the sodomites/LGBTQ, same-sex marriage, with such vigor that they are putting a stumbling block in the way of young Christian men from good families in the church; young men who have zero attraction to females and total attraction to males. The conservative churches have not given any workable solutions to these guys, only condemnation and give no more hope than that promised by the fraudulent, con-artist faith healers.
Rom 1:27, And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The very context of the word "burned" in the verse above, indicates that it is a burning of lust.

So, I don't see where you get off trying to say that the word in Greek doesn't indicate a burning of lust. Whatever the meaning of the word "burned" in the above verse, the words surrounding it indicate that it was speaking of a burning of lust.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
3,243
297
83
#97
where is your evidence

lol
you just saying stuff.

Is it in th Bible? no. This is a Bible discussion forum, What do you mean 'known to be black'. Had black hair? Had black skin? Had black eyes? or something else?

Its never mentioned, What is mentioned is that Esau was RED. And the edomites were somehow red.
You would have to get it from an extrabiblical source...

But yes, the descendants of Ham are primarily black races today. The people in the nations called by the names of those who were descended from Ham today are primarily black races today.

The evidence is out there in the world if you want to look for it;

However, I am not going to dredge it up here as though I even need to.

Just look up the names of the people who were descended from Ham and look into the history of the nations named after those people. They are primarily black nations today, no doubt about it.
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
661
225
43
#98
You would have to get it from an extrabiblical source...

But yes, the descendants of Ham are primarily black races today. The people in the nations called by the names of those who were descended from Ham today are primarily black races today.

The evidence is out there in the world if you want to look for it;

However, I am not going to dredge it up here as though I even need to.

Just look up the names of the people who were descended from Ham and look into the history of the nations named after those people. They are primarily black nations today, no doubt about it.
There are all sorts of political interpretations designed to justify racial prejudice against groups on the basis that they are somehow descendants of cursed people, etc. On one hand, you see the interpretation that Ham's descendants are Congoid, on the other hand, there is a pushed narrative that Ham's descendants are Caucasoid (Hamidic Caucasian). In either case, it doesn't come from the Bible, and in either case the sole purpose of the narrative is to wantonly justify prejudice against either group on the basis that "they inherited Ham's curses". This type of racial prejudice isn't driven by Christian thinking, but is typical of an Old Testament style of thinking such as that of modern State of Israel Talmudic Judaism. Which in many cases dislikes the claims of Black Hebrews to the land, to the point that birth control shots were administered to Black Hebrew migrants in some cases under the guise of being a mandatory vaccination shot.

And that said, I'm not saying this to accuse anyone of being prejudicial. This is not to say that anyone that proposes the concept that "Ham was black" is necessarily trying to impose racial prejudice, but the sole function of that narrative is indeed to impose and justify racial prejudice.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
12,876
4,589
113
#99
The Strong's entry on Ham reads:

H2526 חָם Cham (chawm) n/l.
1. hot (from the tropical habitat).
2. Cham, a son of Noah.
3. (as a patronymic) his descendants or their country.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reads:

"2. Ham as a Nationality:

The name given, in Ps 105:23; Ps 105:17; Ps 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former."

That seems to be the argument for Ham being the father of the black race. Whether it is reading too much between the lines is another matter.
weird stuff from your dictionary

because Esau in the Bible means RED, so are you going to argue he's the father of a red race.

I think its reading way too much into it, plus there are more than 3 colours in different peoples 'races'.

Also, its not explicitly said in the Bible, so its not important. Dont you think the Bible would have said so if it was. It said so for Esau that he was BORN red, but it never said so for Ham.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
12,876
4,589
113
Different dictionaries give different meanings, but a quick google search for the Hebrew reveals

Ham ...hot, to protect or wall
Shem...name or fame
Japtheth..beautiful

also in the Bible, it was said cursed be Canaan, not Ham. It is never said what colour skin the cannanites were, but it seems silly to suggest Noah had 3 sons all of three different colours and they just stayed the same colour for the rest of eternity down their lineage. Because people marry etc and their wives may have been different colours, and while people did get scattered it was only after the tower of Babel that they all couldnt communicate because of different LANGUAGES