Bible Discussion Thread

There is a lot of missing words here, it says, he told his two brothers without. And goes on to the next verse, without What? It supposed to say "without covering his nakedness, also the bible scholars don't want to talk about it, but the curse before it was taken out to be politically correct, but it should say that canaan was cursed with a darker hue, meaning that he was the start of the black race, you can argue until the cows come home, but if that curse of a darker hue didn't mean black, then where did they come from, there is no other time in the bible that can account for the black race, it's not saying anything offensive to the black race, we are all sinners, and fall and fall short of the glory of GOD, when you start taking out the word of GOD, because you don't want to talk about slavery, well then you are doing the Devil's Work, and leading people astray on to the road of destruction, I can't in good faith ask for any mercy on their soul.

Hi David. Just to clarify Genesis 9:22, "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

The word "without" here, is an older English word usage, meaning 'outside'. It is supposed to be the opposite of 'within'. We use 'within' often, but not so with, 'without'. Therefore, when Ham saw (or, observed) his father's condition, he went & told his two brothers who were 'outside' the tent. So when the brothers, knowing their father's state, approached the tent opening, they put a (large) material across their shoulders & walked backwards into the tent to cover their father & in so doing gave him due respect.

Now ask yourself, does that make any sense? If you read what the Hebrews originally wrote, it say's without covering his nakedness. You are correct, when you say he went out of the tent, and told his brother's, and that's how they new to bring a garment and walk backwards, that's not what's in question here, it's what they have taken out from the Bible, and what was originally written, that's in question, and that's just so they don't have to talk about, different civilization's, using the curse of Canaan, to justify them in slaving black people, but the curse was, he and his offsprings would be of a darker hue. We have to go by the closest too, and the most reliable information that we have, and when they start leaving out words, and start changing words, just to be politically correct, and Christians except it, well I have a problem with that and so does GOD!!! GOD Bless brother.

Thank you David. May I refer you to a few OT & NT Scriptures: Exodus 33:7; Proverbs 1:20; Ezekiel 41:17. And Matthew 12:46,47; Matthew 26:69; Hebrews 13:13. These show the intended meaning of 'without' as seen & understood in Genesis 9:22.

But if you still believe that Genesis 9:22 is incomplete, I would be very interested, like Adam, to know where you learned this & the relevant references so we can research this as you have done. In anticipation I remain.

No words are missing in the KJV Bible. The meaning has been the same for more than 400 years since its first printing, which can easily be verified on a website like this. People sometimes make false assumptions about it though. I trust God's word over man's word any day.

In the middle of your statement, you said "no other time in the bible that can account for the black race." I'm not sure where you get your information from. While the Bible doesn't explain all answers to all questions we have, it does say a lot. Maybe your question is where do races come from. Two common theories exist- some believe Noah's family was diverse and spread out into different people groups from there. And others, including myself, believe God's work at the Tower of Babel included changes to culture and race, along with the already disclosed language creation and regional placement across the earth. God bless.

Thank you for you comment, I too trust GOD word over man's assumptions, but isn't what's in the KJV, the translation from the Hebrew writings? And if yes, then why do the Hebrew writings from 200BC say without covering his nakedness. brother your soul is at stake, and you have to make sure for yourself, do your own research, but be wise about it, don't go by what somebody is telling you it says, look for yourself, and you quoted some theories about Noah having a mix race family, that's just bonkers to me, and I've only been study for 6 months, and at the tower of babel, it says nothing about changing Thier races, he confounded their language,and scattered them across the earth. We know Satan Will cause a great deception, don't you think that corruption of the word of GOD, and misleading the followers of Jesus Christ could be the great deception? That's why you should do your own research, and not trust man. You said you will take God words over man's words any day didn't ya?

I believe the Bible is God's Word. If you believe it's a corrupted man's word then I wonder why you're reading it and what other info source you're comparing to, like Hebrew? Did someone tell you the KJV is corrupted and do you believe them or are you assuming this based on your own research of something in particular?

You gave a few examples in a sentence, but I can't quite discern what you're referring to. It sounds you're mentioning someone being naked, but you didn't say what book/chapter/verse nor whether you think the KJV says that or Hebrew says that or some other source? If you want to discuss your questions in an open manner that can be done and you'll probably get others' input, but to come to a KJV Bible site and claim that the Bible is corrupt without any dialog seems inappropriate.

I was able to comprehend your statement about tower of babel, however. Ok, you seemed to ask where races came from and I gave my opinion and wrote the 2nd paragraph response to you. But now you're saying that it wasn't in the Bible. Of course it's not in the Bible- if it was in the Bible would you be asking about it? And that's why I wrote what I did: "While the Bible doesn't explain all answers to all questions we have..." which is why I offered my opinion.

Hi Adam, I want to start off by apologizing to you, i sounded confrontational, and a little bit of a smart mouth, I did not choose my chose my words wisely, and I am sorry for that. I must of misunderstood the question, I thought they was asking what the curse was, and why he was cursed, and I have only been studying for about 6months now, and don't have much education, I will have to look for that website that I got that information from, I will send it to you and Chris, and I could be wrong, I don't want to discourage, or mislead anyone, I never meant for you to think, that I was saying the KJV isn't the word of the Most High GOD, I just thought that they left out some of the words, and if so, why? For example, the left out the book of Enoch, and that should of definitely been in the bible, because Enoch was face to face with GOD, and walked with GOD, and didn't suffer death for

GOD took him, and like I say, If I'm wrong about it, I'm sorry and I never meant to mislead anyone, I just want people to look and make sure for themselves, don't believe it just because that's what you were told to believe, because when it's all said and done, we will all stand before the LORD. May GOD bless, you and yours brother Adam and Brother Chris.

In my comment

Two word were wrong

Did god a grave disservice

And satan is the great decieve

Sorry

No one is denying Enoch

He was a servant of god

And went to heaven without dieing

The problem is who wrote the book of Enoch

Because the book of Enoch is full of inconsistencies with the inerrant word of god

There is no reason to believe Enoch

Wrote the book of enoch

And whoever did did Enoch and God a grace dis service

Just because a book was found does not mean the writer was a believer or servant of god

As you know their many false profits and satan decided

I am not saying Enoch himself was a false profit

He was a man of god

But not the writer of the book that bears his name

Enoch (Hebrew: meaning "initiated") is a name in the Hebrew Bible used by two separate figures who lived during the generation of Adam.

The first Enoch was the son of Cain.

He is described as a son of Cain, and father of Irad. After Cain arrived in the Land of Nod, to which he was evicted by the Lord as his punishment for murdering his brother Abel. His wife became pregnant and bore Cain's first child, whom he named Enoch.

The SECOND Enoch was a descendant of SETH, the third son of Adam, and great-grandfather of NOAH ( Genesis 5:22-29). Seth is the bloodline of Jesus Christ ancestors and Must Not be Confused with Cains ancestor.

First Book of Enoch was at first accepted in the Christian Church but later excluded from the biblical canon. Its survival is due to the fascination of marginal and heretical Christian groups, such as the Manichaeans, with its syncretic blending of Iranian, Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian elements.

Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and others borrowed an opinion out of this Book of Enoch, that the angels had connection with the daughters of men, of whom they had offspring (Nephilim: 'the giants of the past'). Tertullian, in several places, speaks of this book with esteem; and would persuade us, that it was preserved by Noah during the deluge. The Book of Enoch, however, was rejected by Origen, Jerome and Augustin as spurious.

[newworldencyclopedia DOT ORG]

Mishael comment: there is Much confusion as to the First Enoch, son of CAIN (who was cursed by God), in Genesis.