Of NOAH'S LINEAGE...
Let's look at the genealogy in Genesis 5 and prove
LIST OF THE PURE SETHIC FIRSTBORN
ADAM and Eve =====> ABEL
(murdered by Cain)
``===> SETH + Sister
ENOS + Sethic wife
CAINAN + Sethic wife
MAHALALEEL + Sethic wife
JARED + Sethic wife
ENOCH + Sethic wife
METHUSELAH + Sethic wife
LAMECH + Sethic wife
Last =======> NOAH + Cainic wife or Hybrid wife
``===> 3 sons -- mixed seeds -- HYBRIDS -- Japheth, Ham,
"These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the
whole earth overspread" (Gen.9:19)
1) Since all the Adamic firstborn
were mentioned up to Noah, we can be very sure that, except for Noah, their wives were of their own blood line (Seth's). However, many of the other
sons and daughters of each firstborn had become fallen sons and daughters
of God. For anyone to simply say that Enoch (or anyone for that matter except
Noah) was the last of the pure seed, I can only say the person is only
presuming, he has no Scriptural facts. He does
not know what he is saying. First of all, a genealogical record is similar
to a family tree. It will show its offshoot as long as it is genetically
feeding on the same sap of life, that is, a
direct descendant of Seth who bore the image and likeness of Adam
(Gen.5:3). As long as Seth's descendants of firstborn marries within the
Sethic race, the next firstborn (offshoot) will have his name in the family
tree. But if this firstborn marries outside the family race, his
firstborn will never be listed in the family tree as the sap of life is
no longer the same kind.
Notice what Moses wrote: "And Noah
was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth"
(Gen.5:32). Why did Moses write it that way unlike what he wrote of
those others before Noah? Also, why was the name of Noah's firstborn
mentioned last and not first? It cannot be so difficult for us to see that
there was then a change in the "sap of life" for God had Moses wrote:
"These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth
overspread" (Gen.9:19). And later in the Book of Acts were written this
that God "...hath MADE OF ONE BLOOD (that is, the one blood line [kinship,
descent] from Noah and his wife) ALL NATIONS OF MEN FOR TO DWELL ON ALL THE
FACE OF THE EARTH..." (Acts 17:26).
2) Hybridization causes genetic disturbances. Notice
that every firstborn Sethite from Adam to Lamech gave birth to sons and
daughters. That shows that all of them married a pure seed (Sethic) woman.
But it was not so with Noah. He had only sons. This proves that his
wife was not a pure seed (Sethic) woman.
3) "Noah was a just man and perfect in his
generations, and Noah walked with God" (Gen.6:9b). This
verse tells us the kind of person that Noah was. No wonder "Noah found grace
in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen.6:8). [Please consult Strong's
Concordance, 2580 for the word "grace". "Grace" in
Hebrew is "chen", meaning graciousness, kindness, favor, pleasant,
precious, well-favoured, from 2603, "chanan", to stoop in
kindness to an inferior; to favor, bestow; to implore.] Not only was he a just
(righteous) man, but he was also perfect, and He walked with God. The
word "perfect" used in this verse is translated from
the Hebrew word "tamim" which means "without
blemish" in terms of breed or pedigree.
Hence, the Scriptures clearly show us that Noah was a "pure breed"
Sethites, and not a hybrid.
I have been asked this question:
"If Noah was a pure seed, and he knowing the will of God
concerning mixed marriages, why did he not marry a pure seed like the rest of
the other sons of God?" The one
who asked me this question believed that Enoch was the last of the pure seed.
But he himself was unable to answer his own question as to why Enoch did not
marry a pure seed. Such a question is irrelevant and quite silly. If Noah did
take a pure seed and all his descendants had the same revelation to also take
pure seed to wife (throughout all generations), then we would have a race of
pure Sethic people on the earth today as all the Serpent seeds were destroyed
in the Flood. And with only Sethic people on earth, there would not have been
wickedness, evil, etc. manifesting on the earth today. But did it not happen
that way? If not, why not?
As sin had already entered the human race in the
garden of Eden, pure seeds or not, mankind did continue to commit sins or make
wrong choices. We see "that the sons of God saw the daughters of men
that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose"
(Gen.6:). These were pure seeds. They knew the will of God concerning mixed
marriages. Yet, they mixed married. So the question, "Why did they mixed
married?" is irrelevant and silly. Just as the Fall of mankind did not
catch God by surprise, the same is also true in Noah taking a seed not of his
race (cf. Rom.8:20).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Of THE SIN
GEN 9:18 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
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
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem;
and Canaan shall be his servant.
These ten verses of Scriptures deal with the sin of Ham.
Notice that the first of the ten verses begins with "And the sons of Noah,
that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth:" plus, an
emphasis on Ham being the father of Canaan, "and Ham is the father of Canaan."
Why such an emphasis? The same emphasis is repeated in the fifth statement
(verse 22). Why?
Noah curse Canaan? Why not Ham’s other sons?
Does it justify Noah to curse Canaan if Canaan
was the seed of Ham and his wife (Mrs. Ham)?
Should not Ham be the one cursed instead? For a
curse to be justifiable, Noah should either have cursed Ham's eyes because he
ogled at his nakedness, or cursed his brain (mental faculty) for he made light
of his nakedness. And, if Ham had forced himself upon Noah when Noah was
drunk, then a curse upon Ham's reproductive organ would be justified. Remember the Word says: "And if any mischief follow, then thou
shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"
So, why Canaan? When God emphatically mentioned the name of Canaan in
connection with Ham’s sin, in Gen.9:22, "And
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and
told his two brethren without"
and in Gen.9:18, "And the sons of Noah, that went
forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father
of Canaan", He calls our attention to Canaan . God calls to our attention that Canaan was a
really bad seed produced out of Ham's shameful act of sin ("uncovering...saw the nakedness of
his father") – sin of an unholy union. Canaan was a seed
not of Ham and his wife (Mrs. Ham) but of Ham and his mother (Mrs.
Noah). The incestuous act brought forth that seed – Canaan. And Canaan
brought forth GIANTS, this side of the flood (Gen.10:15-19). He was an
accursed seed, just as Cain was a bad seed. Hence, Noah was justified in
cursing Canaan. It could not be any plainer. This shows that Ham's sin was not
something else, like making light of Noah's nakedness. (Notice that
Mrs. Noah did not bear any more children for Noah after her incestuous act
with Ham which resulted in the birth of Canaan.)
Those who could not see, or do not want to
believe, the incestuous act in the sin of Ham have tried to disprove it by
saying that words and meaning of words would have changed with time. An
example given is the word used for sexual relationship. The word "knew"
(in Gen.4:1, "And Adam knew
Eve his wife…") was later
changed to "went in unto" (Gen.16:4, "And he went in unto
Hagar,...") and again later to "lay with" (Gen.19:33,
"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in,
and lay with her father;..."). This argument is to do away that the
words "uncovered…saw the
nakedness of his father" in Gen.9:21-22 are not the same as
written in the laws found in Leviticus 18 and 20. It argues that those
words written about the event in Genesis have not the same meaning as found in
the laws in Leviticus as they are some 800 years apart. O foolishness!
Who wrote the Book of Genesis? Who wrote the Book of Leviticus? Was it not
Moses? And when did he write them? Think. And did Moses have one meaning for
using those words when he wrote Genesis and another meaning when he wrote Leviticus?
Now, could anyone
after Moses (after his writings of the Pentateuch) used the word "knew" to
denote the same thing what he wrote at the beginning in Gen.4:1, "And Adam
knew Eve his wife…"? Can a person write "And So-and-so knew his wife…"
since Moses had changed to "lay with" in the later part of his writings? And
if any person used it, say, a few hundred years later, would the word "knew"
have changed its meaning? What about the other terms "went into" and
with", if someone should use them hundreds of years later, would the meanings
have also changed then?
Apparently not! Check out
these verses written by other men of God after Moses’ death:
11:38: And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with
her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39: And it came to pass at
the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her
according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it
was a custom in Israel,
16:1: Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto
19:25: But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and
brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the
night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
4:13: So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto
her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
1:19: And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD,
and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah
his wife; and the LORD remembered her.
2:22: Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel;
and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation.
1:4: And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to
him: but the king knew her not.
23:8: Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they
lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured
their whoredom upon her.
1:25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and
he called his name JESUS.
Here are the rest found in
Scriptures. 2Sam.11:4; 12:24; 13:14; 16:22; Ezek.23:44.
So, if those different terms
or words mean the same even after hundreds and thousands of years, how could
one justify that the usage of words "uncovered…saw the nakedness of his
father" in Gen.9:21-22 has not the same sense and meaning as used
in Leviticus 18 and 20, especially when Genesis and Leviticus were
written by Moses?
Different words maybe used
to describe one particular thing/act/event. But those words would still be
applicable to describe that particular thing/act/event after hundreds or
thousands of years.
Finally, some people may feel that if
both mother (Mrs. Noah) and son (Ham) had truly committed incest God would
have killed them, but it’s only their presumption to try to do away with
incest. That’s just what the denominations, who could not understand the
Serpent Seed, said in the same manner about the Serpent and Eve. They are more
right for the sex act was between a woman and a beast (of course, according to their
points of proofs are available in The Original Sin message found under
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~