Descendants of Canaan....cursed by God

[Thorwald Johansen]

Does this curse still exist today? Who are these descendants? Should descendants of Shem or Japheth marry the descendants of Canaan, today?

 

[Breathe]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Does this curse still exist today? Who are these descendants? Should descendants of Shem or Japheth marry the descendants of Canaan, today?

Being such a long time ago we would have no way knowing whose who anymore. You could very well be a descended of Canaan and not know it. Don't fret about it man.

 

[Pegg]

im pretty sure Jesus sacrifice covers everyone lol

 

[james2ko]

Does this curse still exist today? Who are these descendants? Should descendants of Shem or Japheth marry the descendants of Canaan, today?

I'll attempt to answer this one and perhaps answer the others as time permits.

Originally the sons of Canaan settled in Palestine. Canaan, remember, was the firstborn of IIam. Canaan’s descendant and this includes the other sons of Ham-were to be "servant of servants" ( Gen. 9: 2 5 ) . Their children are to serve both Shem and Japheth (verses 26, 2 7 ) .

There is nothing wrong with serving we all have to learn to serve. Shem and Japheth must become God’s servants,too. That is why Canaan is called a "servant of servants." Many have quoted this in direct reference to the Negro. As brothers of Canaan, the Negroes have shared the same position in life, but Negroes are not Canaanites.The Canaanites were great traffickers of old. The word Canaanite in Zech. 14:21 is, in fact, translated as "trafficker" in the Jewish translation.

The Sidonians, descendants of Canaan, were famous see-men in the days of Solomon. The Greeks called them "Phoenicians." But the Phoenicians called themselves “Kna” or“Knana,” meaning Canaanite. (See Smith’s Bible Dictionary). When Israel entered the land of Palestine under Joshua, whole tribes of the Canaanites were destroyed or driven out of central Palestine (Judges 3: 1-4) because some of the Canaanites were extremely degenerate in their morals.

Notice Gen. 10:18, "Afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad." Where did they journey? The Canaanites settled the island of Malta and parts of Sicily, Southern Italy,Sardinia, North Africa and even Southern Spain and Portugal, where the sons of Javan were already living. (See Ency. Brit., articles, "Malta," "Sicily," "Carth- age," etc.)

Most people are familiar with the Phoenicians from grade and high school days. In North Africa the Canaanites are called Moors a name probably derived from Amors, the Hebrew form of "Amorites." From these lands they have spread into North and South America since the days of Columbus. The Portuguese--of mixed Canaanite and Tarshish stock-have settled much of Brazil. And the Sicilians are thick in big cities in America. The underworld "Mafia" organization which springs from Cnnnanitish Sicily, is but a modern version of their ancient tendency to traffic among the nations of the world.

Canaanites have also intermarried into Esau-Turkey today (Gen. 26: 34), and Judah (Gem 38.2 ) , and Israel (Judges 3:5-7). Only a few Canaanites remain in North Palestine and Lehannn The Canaanites are seldom included in the prophecies which pertain to this twentieth century. They exert no great position or influence in the world. The main body of non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine today are not Canaanites, but Philistines!

 

[Pegg]

Just a point to note, Rahab the prostitute is mentioned twice in the NT as an example of faith. She later married an Isrealite and is one of the four women named in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. She was an canaanite.

Not so cursed i would say.

 

[Thorwald Johansen]

Just a point to note, Rahab the prostitute is mentioned twice in the NT as an example of faith. She later married an Isrealite and is one of the four women named in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. She was an canaanite.

Not so cursed i would say.

I thought that Matthew's genealogy refers to Joseph, and Luke's genealogy refers to Mary.

 

[Pegg]

I thought that Matthew's genealogy refers to Joseph, and Luke's genealogy refers to Mary.

Rahab married a man in the Davidic line which is Josephs line, yes?

 

[Thorwald Johansen]

I'll attempt to answer this one and perhaps answer the others as time permits.

Originally the sons of Canaan settled in Palestine. Canaan, remember, was the firstborn of IIam. Canaan’s descendant and this includes the other sons of Ham-were to be "servant of servants" ( Gen. 9: 2 5 ) . Their children are to serve both Shem and Japheth (verses 26, 2 7 ) .

There is nothing wrong with serving we all have to learn to serve. Shem and Japheth must become God’s servants,too. That is why Canaan is called a "servant of servants." Many have quoted this in direct reference to the Negro. As brothers of Canaan, the Negroes have shared the same position in life, but Negroes are not Canaanites.The Canaanites were great traffickers of old. The word Canaanite in Zech. 14:21 is, in fact, translated as "trafficker" in the Jewish translation.

The Sidonians, descendants of Canaan, were famous see-men in the days of Solomon. The Greeks called them "Phoenicians." But the Phoenicians called themselves “Kna” or“Knana,” meaning Canaanite. (See Smith’s Bible Dictionary). When Israel entered the land of Palestine under Joshua, whole tribes of the Canaanites were destroyed or driven out of central Palestine (Judges 3: 1-4) because some of the Canaanites were extremely degenerate in their morals.

Notice Gen. 10:18, "Afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad." Where did they journey? The Canaanites settled the island of Malta and parts of Sicily, Southern Italy,Sardinia, North Africa and even Southern Spain and Portugal, where the sons of Javan were already living. (See Ency. Brit., articles, "Malta," "Sicily," "Carth- age," etc.)

Most people are familiar with the Phoenicians from grade and high school days. In North Africa the Canaanites are called Moors a name probably derived from Amors, the Hebrew form of "Amorites." From these lands they have spread into North and South America since the days of Columbus. The Portuguese--of mixed Canaanite and Tarshish stock-have settled much of Brazil. And the Sicilians are thick in big cities in America. The underworld "Mafia" organization which springs from Cnnnanitish Sicily, is but a modern version of their ancient tendency to traffic among the nations of the world.

Canaanites have also intermarried into Esau-Turkey today (Gen. 26: 34), and Judah (Gem 38.2 ) , and Israel (Judges 3:5-7). Only a few Canaanites remain in North Palestine and Lehannn The Canaanites are seldom included in the prophecies which pertain to this twentieth century. They exert no great position or influence in the world. The main body of non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine today are not Canaanites, but Philistines!

Thanks for the info (You didn't happen to swallow an encyclopedia, did you? ). I was curious, because Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any descendant of Canaan. Because of the slave trade, it is very easy to assume a 'link' to the current day descendants of the British and U.S. slave trade. The barriers seem to be more race related than 'curse of Canaan' related, however.

 

[james2ko]

Thanks for the info (You didn't happen to swallow an encyclopedia, did you? ).

Just enjoy sharing the "little" knowledge and nuggets of truth God has blessed me with in hope that others will share theirs with me.

I was curious, because Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any descendant of Canaan. Because of the slave trade, it is very easy to assume a 'link' to the current day descendants of the British and U.S. slave trade. The barriers seem to be more race related than 'curse of Canaan' related, however.

Although the Israelites invaded the land of Canaan and lived side by side with Canaanites for many years, there is no statement in the Bible that the Canaanites were racially different from Israel, though this has often been assumed. The Bible does not specifically tell us why Abraham did not wish his son Isaac to marry a Canaanite, but the most likely reason was because of religious differences. (The Pentateuch later forbade such marriages because
those of non-Israelite stock would introduce Israel to false religions. See (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

In other words, Abraham did not want Isaac to marry a woman who would be a worshiper of Canaanite gods. With such practices going on among Isaac 's Canaanite neighbors, it seems likely that his children would be influenced to become involved in pagan religious practices. Thus Abraham was seeking to ensure that his descendants would continue to worship the one true God.

 

[Thorwald Johansen]

Just enjoy sharing the "little" knowledge and nuggets of truth God has blessed me with in hope that others will share theirs with me.



Although the Israelites invaded the land of Canaan and lived side by side with Canaanites for many years, there is no statement in the Bible that the Canaanites were racially different from Israel, though this has often been assumed. The Bible does not specifically tell us why Abraham did not wish his son Isaac to marry a Canaanite, but the most likely reason was because of religious differences. (The Pentateuch later forbade such marriages because
those of non-Israelite stock would introduce Israel to false religions. See (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

In other words, Abraham did not want Isaac to marry a woman who would be a worshiper of Canaanite gods. With such practices going on among Isaac 's Canaanite neighbors, it seems likely that his children would be influenced to become involved in pagan religious practices. Thus Abraham was seeking to ensure that his descendants would continue to worship the one true God.

Just out of curiosity,.....Were the Egyptians idolators, at the time that Abraham impregnated Sarah's Egyptian 'hand maiden'?

 

[fallingblood]

I thought that Matthew's genealogy refers to Joseph, and Luke's genealogy refers to Mary.

Nope. Both genealogies refer to Joseph. It would have been pointless to mentions Mary's genealogy as it would have shown nothing. More so, both claim to go through Joseph.

 

[Luminous]

Nope. Both genealogies refer to Joseph. It would have been pointless to mentions Mary's genealogy as it would have shown nothing. More so, both claim to go through Joseph.

But Joseph is not Jesus' father. (acording to idol scripture)

 

[fallingblood]

If we look at what current historians are saying, the Israelites began as a Canaanite tribe. They later separated themselves, and wanted to unify themselves. To do this, they wanted to make themselves a distinct people. To do that, it required them to differ themselves from the other tribes.

 

[fallingblood]

But Joseph is not Jesus' father. (acording to idol scripture)

He was legally the father though. That is what would have mattered for the most part. In my opinion, there is no reason to accept either genealogy though.

 

[Pegg]

If we look at what current historians are saying, the Israelites began as a Canaanite tribe. They later separated themselves, and wanted to unify themselves. To do this, they wanted to make themselves a distinct people. To do that, it required them to differ themselves from the other tribes.

the Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, the grandson of Noah by his son Ham

Shem is the founding father of the hebrews. (hence why they are called Semitic)

 

[fallingblood]

the Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, the grandson of Noah by his son Ham

Shem is the founding father of the hebrews. (hence why they are called Semitic)

Shem isn't the founding father of the Hebrews. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are. As for the Canaanites, they were tribes who lived in the land of Canaan.

 

[Pegg]

Shem isn't the founding father of the Hebrews. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are. As for the Canaanites, they were tribes who lived in the land of Canaan.

why only go back 3 generations?

go back a further 8 and Shem is the original ancestor.

 

[fallingblood]

why only go back 3 generations?

go back a further 8 and Shem is the original ancestor.

That's debatable. Especially when one considers that the Jews consider Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be the patriarchs of their people. Going any further back than even that becomes quite shaky. Especially since the story of Noah simply is not historical in nature (as in the flood never happened and was probably borrowed from the epic of Gilgamesh), Noah's existence is shaky.

More so, most scholars agree now that the first 12 chapters of Genesis are not historical in nature. So I would say starting with Abraham is probably the best we can do.

Either way, seeing the Jews as a Canaanite tribe to begin with is not based on the Bible per se, but on archeological evidence.

 

[Pegg]

That's debatable. Especially when one considers that the Jews consider Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be the patriarchs of their people. Going any further back than even that becomes quite shaky. Especially since the story of Noah simply is not historical in nature (as in the flood never happened and was probably borrowed from the epic of Gilgamesh), Noah's existence is shaky.

More so, most scholars agree now that the first 12 chapters of Genesis are not historical in nature. So I would say starting with Abraham is probably the best we can do.

Either way, seeing the Jews as a Canaanite tribe to begin with is not based on the Bible per se, but on archeological evidence.

I do take the genesis account to be historical so i dont have problem with Noah and his 3 sons as being the starting point of all nations today...there is evidence for that

but i have to ask, if you dont think the genesis account is historical, then why would you accept even Abraham?