Talk:Ham (son of Noah)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Grave of Ham[edit]

Here is an interesting finding about Ham. A grave situated in Pakistan is claimed to be of Ham. This grave is 78 feet long. Photos of this grave can be seen on an Urdu blog here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

White supremacy?[edit]

This is a completely inappropriate, and I'm editing out most of the article. Most of it has no real citable basis in fact, and a lot of it sounds like KKK and other kinds of white-supremacist creationist nonsense. Bar fly high (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


The article has Canaan as father of the Canaanites, phoenicians, and Chinese? Did the Hebrews have knowledge of people that far east?-- 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Hebrews knew of people that far east. However, the claim that Canaan was the father of the Chinese is incorrect. The Chinese and other Asians are descended from Japheth, the son of Noah. 03:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The people does mention the chinese they are called the sinim

--Java7837 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Curse of Ham[edit]

This was listed under the discussion section of the Noah article, and I figure it also appropriately belongs here, and parts of this discussion could probably be posted in the actual article since it has references: I am not sure where I read this, so for any of you fanatics out there that have the time to research this, here it goes:

Ham was cursed not because he saw his father naked, but because he stole his garment, which was the same garment that was given to Adam (Genesis 3:21) when he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This garment also represented the beginning of animal sacrifice (because it was a coat of skin - which came from an animal) to represent the coming of a Savior to be sacrificed for the sins of all mankind (and although an alter is not mentioned, this is the first reference to an alter being used for sacrifice - this being the same type of sacrifice that was made by Abel, Noah, and many others including Moses - Genesis 4:4, Genesis 9:9, Exodus 20:24 as well as many others). The making of this coat would have been the first sacrifice of a living creature. This coat was also said to be a symbol to all creatures not to harm Adam, which is infered in Genesis 9:2 when God tells Noah that all animals will fear him.

It was also said in the book that I got this information from that Nimrod "a mighty hunter," who was a descendant of Ham (Genesis 10:8-9), may have used this garment to lure animals to him so that he could slay them. This idea also came from Genesis 9:2 when it says "into your hands are all [animals] delivered." If this were the case, it would also explain how Noah was able to get so many different animals in the ark.

Well, there it is. Obviously it is not word for word. Sorry I don't own the book where I read this anymore. I don't remember its title or anything. Despite that I don't own the book anymore, and am unsure who first gave rise to this idea, it is obvious that there is some consideration to be made in reference to the ideas presented here.

I mean, to even consider that such a hefty curse would be put upon someone for seeing a naked man (much less his own father) is somewhat naive.

Nammerama 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Let us know when you find the book :-). PiCo 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you go to and use these words together in this order "noah ham garment hunter" without the quotation marks you can find plenty of references for ideas mentioned above. Again, I don't have time to go through and reference everything, but it is very fascinating, and if anyone has the time it should be added to this article or to the curse of ham article. Nammerama 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a few primary disagreements with the above premise First, The so called curse of Ham, is not actually a curse upon Ham, as much as it was a curse upon the son of ham Canaan. "Cursed be Canaan" is the exact wording used in the KJV version of the Bible. Therefore the curse isn't upon Ham. The wording of the section is a misunderstanding of the passage of the Bible. see article on curse of Ham Second, the narration that is given above about the curse passed by Noah upon his son's family about a stolen fleece seems a bit hokey. Just because a Google search turns up a consensus of a legend does not mean that the legend was fact. (As prevalent and powerful as it is today, was Google there?) a)The Biblical reading of the gathering of the animals for the ark that Noah built will dispel the notion that Noah needed a fleece to gather the animals. God gathered the animals. b)As today, a fleece is a part of a carcase of a dead animal, the skin. All portions of a carcase will decay with time. It is preposterous to think that the fleece of a sheep killed as a garment for Adam would survive until the time of Noah, (calculated by some as 1600-1800 odd years) let alone until the time of Nimrod possibly up to 200 years later. Even the best preserved leather dries out breaks down in time. Third, Some have asserted that the curse wasn't passed simply because Ham saw his father naked, but possibly because Ham expressed himself sexually when he saw his fathers nakedness. I heard one person say that Ham may have taken advantage of his fathers in a homosexual way while he was in a drunken stupor. Another interpretation that would go along with later Jewish law about uncovering the nakedness of ones father would go that Noah's wife may have been drunk as well and that Ham raped his mother. From the Biblical account there is no way of knowing exactly what went on in that tent while Noah was drunk from his wine, whatever the case, Noah must have felt it significant enough that a curse needed to be passed. (incidentally the descendants of Canaan were wiped out following the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua.)Mortsey 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are actually references for the ideas that Mortsey mentioned above, it would be nice to see them so that we can all benefit. As an addendum to my comments above, I did use google to find some quick references but this does not mean that my references are not valid. As mentioned above, the book I originally read that contained these references was lost, and then I used google to see if I could find it. As it turns out, there were multiple references from scripture scholars from various backgrounds(they spend their whole lives studying these things). Again, if you stop to think of the importance of such a garment as was given to Adam by God, it would only seem logical that it would be handed down from father to son. The garment given to Adam was not just some "fleece," but it represented the first animal sacrifice, and the garment of that sacrifice was given unto man(see references in first comment). This was not just something that God did on a whim. Seriously, does God do anything on a whim? This animal sacrifice, performed by God (Gen 3:21), was also the first death upon the Earth, which may be reason enough for it to be important to animals too (seeing as God also created the animals). Maybe this is why Adam and Eve were not mauled by a bear before they could procreate. As a reminder, these ideas are not my own, but come from references that can be found using the search terms above (and I am sure they can be found in other places too). Some may not agree with these ideas, but it would seem that there is more reference in the Bible for the above ideas than to just say that Ham made a homosexual pass at Noah. I have also "heard" that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Edan for sexual sins (which seems strange since Eve was Adams "wife" (Gen 3:17)). However, according to the Bible, Adam "knew" his wife (in that sexual sense) after they had already been "kicked" out (Gen 4:1). I am sure there are other ideas that do not agree with the one that I presented. I love Wikipedia because you are free to present them, but at least try to include some sort of reference. Also, according to the KJV of the Bible it would seem that God commanded Noah to gather the animals into the ark, and he (Noah) did (and the reference for this is Genesis 7:1-9). This is the usual pattern found in the KJV of the Bible: for God to command and for man to act and actually work to accomplish what God commanded man to do. Regarding the garment surviving for so long, Noah was six-hundred years old when the flood came, which may also seem preposterous, but things did seem to last a lot longer in ancient times than they do now. With the perfect knowledge and power that God has, I do not think it would have been too difficult for him to have "figured-out" a way to make it last. Nammerama 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I decided to go out and get an actual reference. Much of this idea of "Ham" being cursed for stealing a garment comes from insights of other scholars, both Jewish and Christian alike, based on excerpts from the Aggadah (check out the Wiki-link to learn more about what the Aggadah is). Apparently, according to Jewish tradition Ham did steal the garment that God made for Adam from Noah and it was passed down to Nimrod. According to this tradition the garment also had power over animals. To read these excerpts for yourself, go to and go to Chapter 4 ( of Volume One. Scroll down to the bottom section on Nimrod and enjoy. You can also read about Esau slaying Nimrod, taking the garment spoken of and eventually losing it to Jacob in Chapter 6 ( of Volume One under the headings "The sale of the birthright" and "Isaac blesses Jacob". Thus eventually this garment ended up back in the direct lineage of whom it belonged. Coincidence? I don't think so. Anyway, I would highly recommend that you read about the Aggadah in Wikipedia before you read the other links. Nammerama 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, this explanation makes more sense than any of the other explanations posted in the main article section. Nammerama (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The curse of Ham Speculation?[edit]

A stolen garment? Castration? Homosexual acts upon ones own father? All speculation and most probably untrue, at the very least these speculations should stay on the discussion page. As far as I can see the Bible is a highly descriptive book that if read properly (that is through the view of the author), you can gain proper understanding of it, but if you read it to justify your own ends, you will come up with false "facts".

There is no mention of any of the things above, in, or near the paragraphs containing the story of Ham. In context it was simply that he either ridiculed his father (Noah), or Noah took Hams actions harshly and cursed him harshly due to drunken short mindedness; possibly both. Maybe it was just that he saw his nakedness and nothing else, something in the culture maybe? They were only a few generations away from Adam & Eve (who tried to hide their nakedness from God).

As for the 4th son and castration claims, it's much more likely that is to do with the passing of curses down to the third and fourth generation and blessings up to a thousand generations (Somewhere in the early part of the old testament, cannot remember where, I think between Exodus and Leviticus). Besides I think Noah would of WOKE UP if Ham CHOPPED his BITS off or fondled him in any way!

In fact I agree with the earlier comment made about the article sounding like some sort of KKK nonsense and should be immediately removed.

P.S. Although Noah was a good man, there is no mention that he was perfect and knew how to distribute blessings and curses fairly. In fact Noah's goodness compared to the men of the old world (pre-flood) would suggest that it was relatively easy to be good, they were pretty bad people (the thoughts of man were evil continuously). Also a fathers blessing will stand, even if he is wrong or deceived, just look at the story of Jacob, Esau & Isaac. CONTEXT IS VERY IMPORTANT! Please remember this. Thank you. (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

European Theory of the Brown Crayon[edit]

I must admit that I love how European scholars combine analytics and presumption in Indo-European regards, yet tend to resort to absurd rejectionism toward Afro-Asiatic regards. We all tend see what we want to see,and tend to hear what we want to hear. So, you have a right to believe that Herodotus incorrectly described what he saw as Ethiopian as late as 5th Century BCE. To this group of Ladies and Gentlemen- who know better than a source, at least that makes you all consistent in the other idea that the Egyptians themselves did not understand what color to paint with when depicting themselves. Dare a claim begin, to state that European paintings are not of fair-skin people, but rather the Soil is Tan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Oh just one more thing. The only reference you need to discuss the writings of the Bible is THE BIBLE! It is also good cross reference the translations to get a clearer perspective. But whatever White Supremacist /New Age/Alien theology, people refer to is probably wrong. (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


The meaning of Kemet is not disputed by any Egyptologist as a reference to the black soil of the flooded area along the Nile. There are any number of citations to that effect. Only fringe writers say otherwise. Please follow scholarly consensus. That's how we do things. Paul B (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source that says it means 'land of the blacks' rather than 'black land' or - as it quite literally means - simply 'black'. Also do not use a footnote which I added, which states that it does not mean what you are claiming. This is dishonest. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kemet derives from the word Khem (khawn/cham/ham) which means black. As we know Ham was Noah’s son who moved into Africa and the bible says that Egyptians were one of his descendants. Psalm 78:51. The early Egyptians called themselves KM or Kham-Au which means black people or literary black-god/god like people and their country kemit KMT which means land of black.Caliborn (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The bible is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Bible_as_a_reliable_source Paul B (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the nonsense he left on my talk page "There is no dispute that KMT means 'black'. No-one apart from Afro centrists believes that has anything to do with skin." I don't recall this being about skin color also KMT does not mean black KM does. TruHeir (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing the meaning of the term land of blacks/black land. No one even made it about race, but since he decided to bring up skin color, The article is about nothing other than Ham a biblical figure and according to the bible HAM(which) means black and his children were the people who moved into Africa. So then the people who originally lived there and occupied the vast lands where descendants of Ham. Black Africans were the first to occupy Africa weren’t they ,and they do have dark or darker skin complexions don’t they. ..This is not an Afro-centric view it is what the bible say. I am absolutely not going to waste me time with with this or someone who seem to be so fixated on racism any further TruHeir (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

'Black land' and 'land of blacks' are two completely different meanings. The first is the standard view, and the other is purely Afrocentrist. The source cited says the first, and yet Caliborn is using it to say that it means the seond. That's dishonest. "Black Africans were the first to occupy Africa" is an utterly meaningless statement. The first people occupy Africa were the earliest Homo Sapiens. Their skin colour would have depended on the climate at that time. Skin colour adapts to climate context. That why there are variations, and that's why people get lighter skinned towards the Mediterranean. It may be impossible to say what the skin colour of the Earliest North African peoples was, but it became light(ish) naturally in Africa due to natural selection. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. 1 What you are saying is utterly meaningless. Screaming afrocentrism at the top of your lungs can’t help you. In the bible Ham (meaning black or burnt) was Noah’s son who moved into Africa. The Bible refers to Egyptians as a descendant of ham and Egypt "the land of Ham" in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27 I do not see the made up afro centric story about this. This is what the bible says and you say the bible is not a reliable source.

If the bible is not a reliable source then this Article shouldn't been here altogether, if you want to talk about Egyptology then take it up on an article about Egyptology. Since this is an Article about a person from the Bible, the bible is the only thing to stand by.

  1. 2, I did not see an implication about the meaning of Black land and Land of blacks. In the edit made by TH both were listed as possible meanings, In the beginning you argued that it means black land, but the edit you made you just listed it as black. However KMT does not mean does not simply mean black, KM does. So you do not have a point. Caliborn (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is here because it decribes a character in the bible. That's no different from an article on, say Sherlock Holmes. We can describe the things Holmes does in the stories, but we can't use Sherlock Holmes stories as evidence about real events in Victorian England. Read the link I provided. You are the one conflating biblical stories with real history and making claims about etymology. As I say, no Egyptologist thinks that KMT means 'land of blacks'. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
First. TH and Caliborn: the bible is a reliable source only for what is written in the bible (reliable source, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Bible_as_a_reliable_source). The bible says that Ham went to Egypt and founded races there. That's fine. Anything not in the bible - the meaning of KMT/KM - needs to be referenced. As an aside, a sentence such as "Ham could plausibly be a name derived from Khem (Egypt), or vice versa, via sound change, due to the change in language between Egyptian and Hebrew, corresponding to the well known phonological change of /k/ into /x/ (voiceless velar fricative) into /h/" also needs some serious citation attached to it.
Second, if the source provided states that the etymology of Egypt is "X", you cannot drop "or Y" behind it. By all means, though, provide other sources if they give alternate suggests.
Third, the first humans (in Africa or otherwise) were probably much like modern chimps, in having light skin under dark hair. See Human skin color for refs.Catiline63 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they were the first modern humans (Homo Sapiens), they were the first hominids. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You say “First. TH and Caliborn: the bible is a reliable source only for what is written in the bible” WELL GUESS WHAT: This is story written in the bible about a biblical figure so indeed the bible is a very reliable source for what is written in IT. Also you say “Third, the first humans (in Africa or otherwise) were probably much like modern chimps, in having light skin under dark hair” Well for the lack of a better word I would have to say this is utter bullshit simply because it implies evolution. And evolution or any mention of Home Sapiens and hominids has no place in anything concerning the bible. Which is about creationism

Also Paul You want to turn this from what it is a story from the bible because you don't like what is written. Because The bible suggest that human "races" came from Noahs 3 sons. Japheth and his decendants moved into Europe and became the "white" races and Ham became and his moved into Africa and became the Black races, Egypt was considered to be the land of ham and decedents’ for Ham. That is why you argued KMT means black land at first, but suddenly changed it to mean just meaning black. Because to you Black land would imply black people. You amuse me. your actions are so transparent, Paul you are a Eurocentric racist (These are the same people at deem themselves as intellectuals)I'm am sorry but you can not change what the bible say or a story that is written in the bible. As for the meaning of KM and KMT well look it up yourself and if KM doesn’t mean Black and KMT doesn’t mean land of black or black land then you can talk. Other than that there is really no point in any of thisCaliborn (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Bible is "creationist", but Wikipedia is not, and does not consider the bible to be a reliable source for how the world was populated. We cannot use its stories as evidence in arguments. However, as it happens, for this purpose it matters not one jot whether the first Africans migrated into Africa as descendants of Ham, or whether they evolved there from hominids, it has no relevance to the meaning of KMT. Paul B (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mate, I wrote that on the 10th you feel the need to come and comment on it today the 14th? Strange well like I said, this is not a article about egyptology or science or anything else. It is an article about a biblical figure so the bible is the only source to go by. You can have your egyptology or scientific debate elsewhere. Caliborn (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand my points.
If you reread my first point you'll see that I never said that the bible could not be used as a source (for Ham or anybody or anything else in it), only that it could not be used as a reliable source for stuff that isn't in it, such as what KM or KMT mean. For that, only sources pertaining to egyptology and etymology will do.
My third point had nothing to with the bible, but was in response to the (off-topic) thread stemming from TH's comment that "black Africans were the first to occupy Africa". Catiline63 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
If that’s the case then Catiline, you do not have a quarrel here. I am going to quote myself "As for the meaning of KM and KMT well look it up yourself and if KM doesn’t mean Black and KMT doesn’t mean land of black or black land then you can talk. Other than that there is really no point in any of this" Caliborn (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
But then the trouble with that is that - although you disagree with it - Paul has provided a source for his statement: Rosalie. You obviously have knowledge on the derivation of the word "Egypt" from Ham/Khem/KM/KMT, and it would greatly improve the article if you could provide it. Catiline63 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No the trouble in that is that- You do not know what your are talking about the source provided ( Rosalie, David (1997). Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh's Workforce. Routledge. p. 18) Does not in anyway say KMT means black, but rather means BLACK LAND. So you have just contridicted yourself and his claim. He also has not provided a source that says KMT means black. Neither have you, yet your here talking about what he's doing. What are you his cheerleader or Do you speak for him. I quote myself again: Look it up yourself and if KM doesn’t mean Black and KMT doesn’t mean land of black or black land then YOU can talk. And unless you have a source to say that KMT means simply "black". this meaningless back and forth taking is just a waste Caliborn (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(I moved this response by Paul B which was posted above and in between past conversation, down so it does not disrupt sequence of the conversation" the time and date attached to the signature shows when it was written Caliborn (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Of course KMT means black land or land of black. That's what I've been saying all along. And that what reliable sources say. It doesn't mean 'land of blacks'. There are places in England called The Black Country, Blackburn and Blackamoor. That does not refer to the race of the people. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means black land. I only suggested shortening it to 'black' as a compromise. You were the one who was reverting from 'black land'. Remember? Here's the diff [1]Paul B (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really so now you have been saying all along "that KMT means black land or land of black"? If thats the case what is the point of all of this?. You also say "There are places in England called The Black Country, Blackburn and Blackamoor. That does not refer to the race of the people."Point out to me the part in the article that implies race.

You were the one that brought race in this topic. And do not lie you did not just "suggested shortening it to 'black' as a compromise". You said the meaning of KMT was black. I reverted the edit to what the article said before it dispute started. Because you 2 of you were going back and forth. I never once claimed that KMT meant anything other than land of black/blacks. (something all of a sudden you are claiming you agree with) Just so its clear according to the bible Ham was the some of Noah who moved into Africa and "fathered" the black races. Just like his brother Japheth moved into europe and "fathered" the white ones. And If according to the bible Egyptians were desandants of Ham. Then according to the Bible the early egyptains where black.

(Cry if you want to) Being the Eurocentic racist that you are to you Land of black(s) implies race in your mind. That is why you don't like it. But Land of blacks is a possible meaning of KMT just like Land of black or Black land. Which ALL mean the same thing and isn't nessarily racial. You can go and have your egyptology debate elsewhere. This is about the Bible and you can't change what the bible say. Honestly this is pointless and beyond silly. Both have been listed as possible meanings and that is that. Caliborn (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This surely about racism. I’m curious did any of the accusers read the article, because if you did you will see that the term khem is explain so all these disagreements where for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecityone (talkcontribs) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, it does not mention skin color or anything like that....I knew very well that the article explained black land and talked about the fertile soil etc, but see it was never about that, the article or the statement black land or Land of black/blacks. It was about him trying to call me an Afro-centric on a different matter, one which had nothing to do with race. And that edit was what he used to to say I was. This is what the editor Paul B who started these claims and "dispute" left on the other editors page about me. When that editor and I were disputing SOURCES attached to an Image
As you can see race or skin color or anything along those lines were not brought in that dispute with me an that editor, yet if you look up at what PaulB wrote on the noticeboard concerning it along with his claims that I was in his edit war you can see he said it was over a too “European looking image” ….. Just as race or skin color was not mentioned here in this article yet that is what he is talking about.... He is a racist and seems so fixated on race that he has to bring it up even when no one has even mentioned it. This was never about the ham article because the article is self explanatory. Anyone that reads it can see for themselves the meaning of Khem is explain. That is why I am not wasting my time on this or him TruHeir (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot, well about the page the repetitions have been removed by me because the explanations were already present and didn’t need to be added again. So the article is good to go ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecityone (talkcontribs) 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. As Rosalie is the only source that anyone has given for any of this, can his full text on this matter be reproduced here? Then we can all see what he actually writes. Further information can be added if it is sourced. And Caliborn, please don't tell me "you do not know what your are talking about" (as above) when all I have done is ask for sources. Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that the author is "Rosalie David", not "Rosalie, David" as stated above.Catiline63 (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And you still don't know what your are talking about. No one said anything about Rosalie or black land. It was about you backing up your friend over there saying that he had a “source” (Rosalie) for his claim that KMT meant simply black. Something he didn't have because Rosalie never called it black, He called it black land (and your friend all of sudden decided that he agrees it mean black land or land of black) so do not try to lie now, when you are stuck and have nothing to say. It's just a waste of time. Maybe its not 'going anywhere' because there was never an issue to begin with. Cheers Caliborn (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm backing no-one up. All I have asked is what David actually writes in her book. You cited her, so it will be very easy for you to go to the page and copy to here what she writes. (You do have this book that you cite, don't you? - Rosalie David is a she) Again, I fail to see how making such a simple request equates to I "don't know what your are talking about" or that I'm "lying" or "stuck". Catiline63 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The verbatim of David has been restored, as has a googlebooks link to the page in question. She gives only than Kemet = "black land". As does Nicolas Grimal - Kemet = "black (land)". This also has been added. Catiline63 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Mate quick question do you suffer from Mental retardation, because only someone that does would write something this: “ Note that the author is "Rosalie David", not "Rosalie, David" as stated above.Catiline63 (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)” What the comma change the name? The rest of the nonsense is not even worth reading. Stop trying to twist and divert it. You decided to be the cheerleader of someone who said km (correction he said KMT) meant black and you claimed the editor proved sources of that statement when he did’t, and he later “changed” his mind and said it didn’t mean that, but meant black land. And now you’re going around with this nonsense to hide the fact. Just stop your making yourself look worse. Stop wasting writing space and time Caliborn (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear me, you do write nonsense, don't you? First you say I am "someone who said km meant black", but in fact km does mean black! The debate is about KMT. You also falsely assert that "you claimed the editor proved [sic] sources of that statement when he did’t [sic], and he later changed his mind". Firstly I did provide a source for the statement, and I didn't later "change my mind". I briefly compromised to write "black" instead of "black land" after vainly attemting to remove the nonsensical "land of the blacks". It's true that I then asserted that there was no dispute that KMT meant black. What I meant was that the referent "black" was not disputed, so - as a compromise - that could be given. BTW, the style of writing of Caliborn, TruHeir and the suddenly-appearing Thecityone seems to be virtually identical. Paul B (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The article list imfornation about the nile valley, black soil etc. So I don't know why your cheerleader keep bringing that up. The footnotes are he added are perfectly fine, but what sense is there in putting whats already there again. Now Paul, That was a mistake on my part I meant KMT not KM, you are the one the claimed kmt meant black when it didn't. I pointed out above (18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) that KM was what meant black along with your rascism, incase you haven't noticed we are not sitting here bonding over beer, so Paul cut the crap and don't try do turn it around with nonsense. You briefly compromised to write "black" instead of "black land. Who did you make this compromise with, why would anyone want to change it from black land to just black when it doesn't mean that. (Then he say I'm the on who writes nonsense ha!) Mate stop making yourself sound stupid. You didn't comprise with anyone. You wanted to change the meaning of the word because like I said land of black(s). Registered in your racist eurocentic mind as black people. That is why you wanted to change it, so cut the shit."cheers" Caliborn (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I briefly compromised, as explained in my edit summary at the time [2]. It was "with" you of course, though there was no reciprocity. At the time you were reverting with no discussion. You ask, "why would anyone want to change it from black land to just black". I certainly didn't, as the edit history makes clear. You wanted to change it from "black land" to "land of the blacks" [3], a fact which you seem to have strangely forgotten. I made one attempt at a compromise, in that edit. You repeatedly claim that this has nothing to do with race. Why, then, are my edits being accused of being "racist eurocentic" etc unless you are the one who is really fixated by race, but are refusing to admit it? Why else would you claim that it meant "land of the blacks" and try to suppress the edit "black land"? It is the only intelligable motivation. It is a well known Afrocentrist claim not some fantasy of mine [4]. You are simply being disingenuous. Paul B (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why you wrote that long piece of nonsense, because it doesn’t make sense. I reverted the page to what it was before you came and made your edits. And I call you a racist because that is what you are. This is what you said about me ‘’ you repeatedly claim that this has nothing to do with race. Why, then, are my edits being accused of being "racist eurocentic" etc unless you are the one who is really fixated by race, but are refusing to admit it? So I’m the one that’s fixated on race now? That is very strange because of a comment you made. The only thing I said about KMT was “But Land of blacks is a possible meaning of KMT just like Land of black or Black land. Which ALL mean the same thing and isn't necessarily racial”. Are you really going to play this game mate? I do not recall there being a claim that it was about people, because the article explains what it means. YOU PAUL on the other hand are the one that made this comment and made an implication to the race of the people. Not anyone else but YOU. You said

Of course KMT means black land or land of black. That's what I've been saying all along. And that what reliable sources say. It doesn't mean 'land of blacks'. There are places in England called The Black Country, Blackburn and Blackamoor. That does not refer to the race of the people. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"

Because once again even though it all means the same thing. Land of blacks registered in your head as something about race. And being that you are a racist you wanted to get rid of anything that had to do with land all together or as your now calling it “compromise” to change the meaning to simply meaning ‘black” when it didn’t. Don’t even bother trying to twist it on me ha! You are just wasting good writing space and time. Caliborn (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, I have said the numerous times. The article clearly explains the meaning, but you would not know this would you? At least try reading it before you tamper with it. No verbatim is needed to be added, it will only be a repetition of the explanation given. I will not comment here again and seeing that you have clearly violated 3RR it would be wise not to add any unnecessary information Thecityone (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that I've never edited the article before, it's curious that you threaten me with the 3RR rule! Good luck! Also, yes the comma does change the name: "Rosalie David" (= Rosalie David, the author's name) and "Rosalie, David" (= David Rosalie, what you apparently think is the author's name) are completely different. I'm the clearleader of no-one. The references I have added (David, Grimal, and the egyptology journal KMT), all state that KMT/Kemet means "black land", which, I believe, is also your stance, yes? You're removing them even though they support YOU! Catiline63 (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Catiline63 I don't think you get that there is no dispute, how did you even get in this anyway. They all agree on the meaning and there is a source provided also the page talk about the soil. (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Now Hold on a minute[edit]

Noah said "cursed be Canaan," SPECIFICALLY, Canaan himself, Ham's youngest son. When the Bible wants to curse people, it is very clear, as to who is being cursed, numbers, and nations. "Cursed be the nation of...." "Cursed be the people...." where does it say "cursed be Canaan's descendants?" I mean, considering that within the Bible itself, there are numerous other places that SPECIFICALLY curse ENTIRE NATIONS, AND WHOLE PEOPLE in what racist mind did the idea sneak in, that black people should be enslaved when Noah was cursing only one person? Assuming, Canaan is the ancestor of black people, or Ham at least, Noah would have cursed like this, given the Bible's tendencies "Cursed be Canaan and his offspring!" Where does it say that? Seriously man, black people just seem to have the most rotten luck in the world; assuming they descend from Ham, the text clearly states that the curse falls on Canaan specifically. Again when the Bible wants to curse an entire race, it DOES NOT pull punches about it, just pointing that out. (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Birth date[edit]

How helpful is to have a date for Ham's birth in the info-box at the top of the page? Even one that is based on Anno Mundi? We know that there was no historical figure called Ham, so what is the point in giving misleading detail that suggests we can fit him into the historica narrative. Even if we go with the AM suggestion, it's all rather arbitary based on what this or that individual thinks is a fair span for a man's life. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the info in the infobox was not very helpful. But what we need is a section giving the various views of history regarding the dating of Ham. The view that he did not exist is but one POV. There are also several large Churches and other religions holding views of history that he did live, and per NPOV we don't "know" anything about whose POV or competing view of history is correct. For an article on a Biblical figure, we need sources explaining what the Masoretic, Samaritan, Septuagint, Jubilees and other chronologies are for Ham, and who holds to each POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone has added the birthdate back into the info box. What is the value of having this so predominant? The figure of Ham did not exist in human history - despite what the faith position of many people may be. This is no about POV - this is about the facts. There is no archaeological or historical evidence to support such a claim. What's even more comic is that the date is so precise - to the year! I don't mind having the claim put in the main body of the text (along with an explanation of context); but to have it in the infobox upfront gives the date a dignity to which it is not entitled. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The info box with the date is highly misleading. We all know that Ham didn't exist in reality and so pretending that you can fix him at a historical point of time is rather silly. That said if someone wants to add a sentence to explain that some people in the past have used a numbering system based on a highly literal reading of the Bible and thus have put forward a date for Ham's birth (AM) then I can go with that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's try this another way. Who has specifically made the claim that the birth date of Ham (in the context of Biblical creationist theory) is 1557AM please? Can we reference this fact. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pic of Ham/Noah?[edit]

Why is that pic of a white dude after the Germanic takeover of Europe? Come on, we know that Wiki is a place for propaganda, but this is one type that lies cannot even replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Footnote in Infobox is Misleading[edit]

The infobox states that Ham was born in 1557, and then attributes this opinion to "the standard Massoretic Text" as it appears in the "Authorized Version": Anno Mundi era is based on the biblical creation – the 1557 birth year is based on the standard Massoretic text as represented in the Authorized Version. Septuagint and Samaritan texts have different values. See Chronology of the Bible. This is simply untrue. Neither the AV nor the MT fix a date for the birth of Ham. It is (maybe) possible to work out a date for the birth of Shem from the MT/AV, depending on how you read some verses. It is (maybe) possible to figure out a birth date for Japheth, depending on how you read some verses. But there is no statement in the MT or AV as to the year that Ham was born. It's just not there. If this article is going to claim a 1557 date for Ham, we need a reference to a reliable source that states that Ham was born in that year. Otherwise, the 1557 date is original research. It is not Wikipedia's place to host original analysis of the highly disputed field of biblical chronology. Until then, I'm moving the footnote to this talk page, and replacing it with a Citation Needed tag.Alephb (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)