Genesis;9/10

by badboy 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  In genesis 10;13/14 I think it is.it says that MIZRAIM was the ancestor of the Philistines,Canaan was the father of the Hittites.
  

  MIZRAIM was EGYPT.

  How came both the Hittites and Philistines were Indo-European speaking peoples,if their ancestors came from Egypt/Canaan.

  Incidentally the philestines came from Greece.

  Can someone please explain?

  In Genesis Chapter 10 Mizraim and Canaan, were individual persons, (first generation grandsons of Noah). They would both have been before the confusion of Tongues at the time of the tower of babel. Later on (after babel) their descendants would have spoken different languages than the individuals Mizraim and Canaan. Genesis 10 1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
  2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
  3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
  4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
  5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
  6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
  7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
  8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
  9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
  10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
  11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
  12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
  13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
  14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.
  15 And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth,
  16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
  17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
  18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
  19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
  20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
  21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
  22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
  23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
  24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
  25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
  26 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
  27 And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,
  28 And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
  29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.
  30 And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east.
  31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
  32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
• 

  Leolaia

  I see. And which sons did the Samoyeds, Ugrics, Basques, Wolofs, Zulus, Bantus, Dravidians, Thais, Formosans, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Tibetians, Australian aborigines, Papuans, Melansians, Chukchi Siberian peoples, Eskimos, Na-Denes, Amerindian peoples, Eskimos, Caribs, the Khoisans, the Nahalis, the Kartevelians, Yukaghirs, the Finns, the Ainus, the Turks, the Munda peoples, the Mon-Khmer peoples, etc. etc. come from?
• 

  JCanon

  Leolaia: The designation of Canaan as a son of Mizraim is completely understandable, as it recalls the long period of Egyptian hegemony over Canaan before the rise of independent Israelite, Judahite, and Philistine states in the region

  It might be understandable why there might have been a reference to Canaan being the son of the Egyptians, but this is another case where the Bible is misunderstood. The Bible never said that Canaan was any son of Mizraim! He was always the son of Ham. You simply need to read the text more clearly...
  

  First is given the sons of Ham, including Caanan. Then it describes each son and their sons. Verses 13 and 14 are the sons of Mizraim. Then verses 15 through 19 are the sons of Canaan. The Bible never says Canaan is Mizraim's son. It's just that Canaan follows Mirzraim, that's all.

  6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

  13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
  14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.

  THIS IS THE END OF THIS LINE AND NEW ONE BEGINS WITH CANAAN, THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SON OF HAM.

  15 And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth,
  16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
  17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
  18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
  19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

  CONCLUSION: Canaanites are not descendants of the Egyptians per the Bible. It is important to first get the reference correct before deciphering why it might have made a reference. The Canaanites, Africans and Egyptians are all related through Ham, but the Canaanites are not descendant from the Egyptians.

  Thus Leolaia's assessment that claiming the Caananites were descendants of the Egyptians just because they came under Egyptian rule and hegemony later on is baseless and demonstrates she didn't know beforehand that the Bible never made that claim. Thus that assessment is based upon a false understanding of the text. Which happens often for those only casually familiar with Scripture it would appear. Under the circumstances I guess it would be "completely understandable" if we ignored your comment on this issue, right, Leolaia?

  But...thanks for trying to make it "work", just not needed in this case.
• 

  Leolaia

  Yes that's true, mea culpa, I misread that part of the text this morning, so I should slightly revise my comment. Why was Canaan regarded as a son of Ham? One quite probable explanation is that Egyptians, who were regarded as Hamites, had a long period of hegemony over Canaan prior to the emergence of Israel and Judah. Hamites still living in Canaan into the days of the monarchy are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:40-41, and so one could say that the early Hamitic presence in Canaan played a role in the notion that the Canaanites were Hamitic. But outside the late Priestly use of the traditions in Genesis 10, we also see that "Ham" is used as a name for "Egypt" in Psalm 78:5, 105:23, 27, 106:22, and ?Ham? (chm) itself is etymologically related to the native Egyptian name for the land khmt ?Egypt? and the word khm ?black? from which it is derived. So again my suggestion about the historical relationship between Egypt and Canaan is still relevant. Finally, there is another possibility which Skinner mentions: The wine-legend in Genesis 9 curses Canaan and blesses Japheth and Shem. Making Canaan Hamitic would place the Canaanites within a totally distinct branch of humanity (despite the use of the same language and similar culture), distancing them again from the Israelites.
• 

  JCanon

  So again my suggestion about the historical relationship between Egypt and Canaan is still relevant.

  Hi Leolaia: Canaan was the firstborn of Ham and the Bible's ancestry chart gives him his own descendants; he did not need to be considered "Hamitic" via the Egyptians unless there never was any Ham and Egypt was the original Ham. On the other hand, calling Egyptians "Ham" is appropriate since they were Hamitic. Since it is presumed that Ham fathered both Caanan and Mizraim, there is no need to try to explain why the Canaanites were considered "Hamitic" since the Egyptians have no greater claim to being Hamitic than any other Hamitic national group. The Canaanites were considered Hamitic because of Ham not Egypt, I don't care how long they were being ruled by Egypt. Now if the Caananites were called "Egyptian" at some point, then I'd say, "well, maybe it was because they were under Egypt for some period of time, etc." but that's not the case here. ???
• 

  JCanon

  Leolaia: Finally, there is another possibility which Skinner mentions: The wine-legend in Genesis 9 curses Canaan and blesses Japheth and Shem. Making Canaan Hamitic would place the Canaanites within a totally distinct branch of humanity (despite the use of the same language and similar culture), distancing them again from the Israelites.

  Just so that too much is not read into Canaan's curse. It was Ham who entered in and saw his father drunk and convulsing and naked, having kicked his covering off. This was likely due to the presence of a bacterial fungus that later was cultured and used to cause involuntary euphoric orgasms in men while asleep. (This was used by Lot's daughters on two consecutive nights in "mixed wine" in order to get pregnant while their father was asleep and would not know what happened. The pagan Baal prostitutes used this aphrodesiac as part of their worship, having sex with sleeping men suggested the children born to them that they would later sacrificed were conceived from a god, etc. Noah seems to have discovered this potent drug by mistake). Thus when Ham saw this sight, his father convulsing but his "nakedness" (sexually aroused state) exposed, he ran outside the tent and told Shem and Japeth, his older brothers so they could come in and see this sight. But they were aghast and likely told Ham to go back in and cover their father up. Ham must have refused resenting the more noble position his older brothers had taken. So Shem and Japheth devised a way to cover their father without observing his embarassment. This was not an issue of simple nudity. Of course, Noah was told about this when he awoke and finding out what Ham did, he made his oldest son, Canaan, who was already born, thus being the eldest grandson and thus of high rank, subject to working as a servant in the tents of Shem and Japehth. You can imagine that having children meant that you'd have help, etc. So Ham might have been already bragging about his older son and "getting ahead" in that game of the older, dominant son, so Noah reversed it and made him the servant to the older brothers of Ham, who had not had any children by the way.

  But that's it. The sons of Ham didn't get the blessing from Noah as did Shem and Japheth, but when you look at the sons of Ham historically, they tend to be preferred over Japeph, second to Shem, the father of the Jews, of course. Of course, the Caananites did quite well in the long run, some of them, when you look at Tyre and Sidon, though they did develop some rather severe religious practices, infanticide among them. Thus the "curse" was a personal one for Canaan and not all his children. Beyond that personal blow, I guess you could say the sons of Ham generally fall behind the sons of Shem and Japeph when you make a general comparison (i.e. the Asiatics and Caucasians seem to do better than the Hamitics, generally, though Egypt didn't do too badly).

  As far as the languages of Caanan go, though I know you might have your own beliefs in this regard, BIBLICALLY speaking the original language was likely Hebrew. When the languages confused in Babel, different languages were given to those directly involved with this conspiracy to stay in one place instead of spreading out to allow for genetic diversification. Thus "another theory" would be that perhaps the Caananites were not directly connected to this project.

  This might be suggested because of "Melchizedek" who was of Hamitic origin and specifically a Canaanite, but was a worshiper and high priest of the Most High. Abraham acknowledged this. So if the Caananite language base and that of the Jews are similar it might only reflect their language was not altered; keeping in mind when you regionalize you still develop a different "dialect"; people in Texas speaking English don't sound like people in Australia speaking English.

  Well, I want to keep it short, so.....

  JC
• 

  badboy

  wHERE WAS cASLUHIM?
• 

  badboy

  I read in several bible commentaries on the net,that Casluhim was supposedly in Lower Egypt.

  One actually said that the Caphtorim were in Gaza!!

  won't the Caphtorim Cretans?
• 

  Leolaia

  One actually said that the Caphtorim were in Gaza!!

  The Philistines were from Caphtor (Ugaritic Kptr, Egyptian Keftiu, etc.), and the Philistines lived in Gaza. Deuteronomy 2:23 is the text that refers to the "Caphtorim" (i.e. Philistines) living in the Gaza area: "This was also true of the Avvim who lived from Hazerim to Gaza; the Caphtorim came from Caphtor and defeated them". Joshua 13:3 also says that the Philistines ruled over the cities of Ekron, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gath, which originally were cities of the Avvites. The Cherethites (widely regarded as the Hebrew equivilent of "Crete") are also mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:14 as living in the land.

  Casluhim was supposedly in Lower Egypt.

  I don't know if this name has been successfully accounted for. Sayce read the name Kasluhat on an inscription from Ombos, Egypt, but I don't have any further details or whether this reading is accepted today. There are textual problems with this name. The gloss linking the Philistines to the Caphtorim floats to the Casluhim in the LXX, and the LXX also spells the name as Khasmonieim, which is a significant departure from the Masoretic spelling. Muller reconstructs on the basis of the LXX a Hebrew original spelling nsmnym (the nun and kaph resemble each other in Aramaic-style Hebrew orthography), and links the name to the Nasamones of Herodotus, History 2.32, 4.172, 182, 190 which is the name of a powerful nomadic Lybian tribe, near the oasis of Amon. Interestingly, the Targum Jonathan explains the Casluhim as living in Cyrenaica which was a region of Lybia.
• 

  AlanB

  I see. And which sons did the Samoyeds, Ugrics, Basques, Wolofs, Zulus, Bantus, Dravidians, Thais, Formosans, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Tibetians, Australian aborigines, Papuans, Melansians, Chukchi Siberian peoples, Eskimos, Na-Denes, Amerindian peoples, Eskimos, Caribs, the Khoisans, the Nahalis, the Kartevelians, Yukaghirs, the Finns, the Ainus, the Turks, the Munda peoples, the Mon-Khmer peoples, etc. etc. come from?

  Good point.... Some of these are language isolates, in that their languages are not related to the main brances of human language. There are similarities between some of these. I suspect that if there was a flood then the language isolates can only be explained by the fact that the flood was not truely global.