Thursday, September 11, 2008

The true curse of Canaan

Has nothing to do with dark skin. It is a curse of the Caucasian and explains your pale skin. Ham's son Canaan and all his seed are cursed with leprosy. All the references are there in your Torah and can be detailed.

References:

  • 1. 2Ki 5:27 "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper [as white] as snow."
  • 2. Luk 4:27 "And many lepers were in Israel [aka Canaan] in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian."
  • 3. Num 12:10 "And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous."

The curse of Ham isn't about dark skin, but rather the disease of leprosy, of which a side effect causes whitened skin. Reverend S.C. Blackledge, who stated in his book "An Open Book On Hidden Mystery" p.55 that Canaan is the cursed albino seed that spawned the Caucasian race. Albinism and vitiligo was historically was known as "white leprosy" of which this particular form of leprosy is now referred to as Alphos.

The Curse of Ham is not about dark skin, but rather disease. Where does it state in the Tanakh the nature of a curse against Canaan other than the land of Canaan being riddled with leprosy in the book of Leviticus? The land of Canaan (aka Israel) of course being where Ham's son settled. Definition two of Strong's Concordance defines the word Canaan (כנען) as follows " the land west of the Jordan peopled by the descendants of Canaan and subsequently conquered by the Israelites under Joshua", and Leviticus 14:34 confirmed that the land was riddled with leprosy. As defined, the land was not conquered by the Israelites until the book of Joshua. So, clearly the Leviticus biblical verse (14:34) is the only consenting reference and defines a plague which could be considered the "curse of Canaan" as prophesied.

The Hebraic word for "house" is "bayith" [בית] ( Strong's H1004) defined in definition 5b as: "family of descendants, descendants as organized body". This definition can be applied in Leviticus verse 14:34 and can describe lineage (in a house of the land...) and NOT a physical home. Ham is defined in definition 2 of Strong's Concordance as "a collective name for Egyptians". The book of Genesis is clear that NORTH Africans, not all Africans descended from Ham as per the Gesenius Lexicon commentary: "חם a name of Egypt; properly it's domestic name amongst the Egyptians themselves..."

We can also conclude from this passage that Leviticus 14:34 could also very well be defining in allegory lineage. Finally, all of Ham's sons (Gen 10:6 Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan) are described as being black except Canaan. Cush = Ethiopian, Phut = Libyan, Mitsrayim = Egyptian. Obviously, because he wasn't. Canaan is defined as simply "the son of Ham" and "lowland" as in another name for modern day Israel. I can find no black nor African references associated with the name of Canaan who has historically been associated with Phoenicians.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right Knowledge my brother. Hotep

Anonymous said...

Raahubaat FAMILY!
So many have told me, but this
in-out-formation has clearly though not fully explained things for me. There are so many web sites that claim to speak of the truth but very few actually do!
Wu Du

Jacqueline Dunlap said...

The Torah is for the true israelites, because you see that they white do not understand it and that is why he has tried to change it. One of the reason they didn't want slaves to learn to read. You are so right about the curse. I have known this for a while now and who the israelites are. "THE BLACKS IN AMERICA''

Awais SEO said...

Vitiligo is a chronic skin disease that causes loss of pigment, resulting in irregular pale or white patches of skin. It occurs when the melanocytes die or are unable to function.

Jacqueline Dunlap said...

The "ARAMAIC BIBLE'' tells the Jews are dark people not white and KJV left it out. I just wonder why. "DEUTERONOMY" tells it all and there are some many places that prove it. The whites can't even prove they are Jews only they saying it and that proves nothing. History is a "BIG FAT LIE".