Featured What is the Christian theological response to racism?

Indeed. The Canaan curse was fulfilled by Jacob conquering their land. And the cruse was not racial, but behavioral. Nothing about skin colors is mentioned. The Canaanites, a single nation from Ham, were very wicked. All nations are wicked, some worse than others, but the use of this text against African people groups is wrong.

It would seem God called out Canaan, knowing the the Canaanites would persist in the type of wickedness Ham, their forefather, was engaged in. The other sons of Ham were not singled out, perhaps meaning their wickedness would not rise to the level of Canaan's.

When you look at the significance of the land of Canaan where Israel would settle, and Messiah would be born, it helps us understand the importance of this prophesy.

 

Neither does Scripture, that's the point. And Scripture says there is one blood, not multiple bloods. Modern distinctions of blood types have nothing to do with anything. You're making a nomenclature error. Scripture holds that human blood is human blood (distinct from animals bloods), and we have all descended from one man.

Even science acknowledges that all humans are of the same species and even subspecies. We are one in the flesh.

 

Also, interestingly, blood types transcend modern racial distinctions.

Distribution of blood types

O A B AB
Aborigines 61 39 0 0
Ainu (Japan) 17 32 32 18
Albanians 38 43 13 6
Grand Andamanese 9 60 23 9
Arabs 34 31 29 6
Armenians 31 50 13 6
Asian (in USA ) 40 28 27 5
Austrians 36 44 13 6
Bantus 46 30 19 5
Basques 51 44 4 1
Belgians 47 42 8 3
Bororo (Brazil) 100 0 0 0
Brazilians 47 41 9 3
Bulgarians 32 44 15 8
Burmese 36 24 33 7
Buryats (Siberia) 33 21 38 8
Bushmen 56 34 9 2
Chinese-Canton 46 23 25 6
Chinese-Peking 29 27 32 13
Chuvash 30 29 33 7
Czechs 30 44 18 9
Danes 41 44 11 4
Dutch 45 43 9 3
Egyptians 33 36 24 8
English 47 42 9 3
Eskimos (Alaska) 38 44 13 5
Eskimos (Greenland) 54 36 23 8
Estonians 34 36 23 8
Ethiopians 43 27 25 5
Fijians 44 34 17 6
Finns 34 41 18 7
French 43 47 7 3
Georgians 46 37 12 4
Germans 41 43 11 5
Greeks 40 42 14 5
Gypsies (Hungary) 29 27 35 10
Hawaiians 37 61 2 1
Hindus (Bombay) 32 29 28 11
Hungarians 36 43 16 5
Icelanders 56 32 10 3
Indians (India ) 37 22 33 7
Indians (USA) 79 16 4 1
Irish 52 35 10 3
Italians (Milan) 46 41 11 3
Japanese 30 38 22 10
Jews (Germany) 42 41 12 5
Jews (Poland) 33 41 18 8
Kalmuks 26 23 41 11
Kikuyu (Kenya) 60 19 20 1
Koreans 28 32 31 10
Lapps 29 63 4 4
Latvians 32 37 24 7
Lithuanians 40 34 20 6
Malasians 62 18 20 0
Maoris 46 54 1 0
Mayas 98 1 1 1
Moros 64 16 20 0
Navajo (N. Am.) 73 27 0 0
Nicobarese 74 9 15 1
Norwegians 39 50 8 4
Papuas (New Guinea) 41 27 23 9
Persians 38 33 22 7
Peru (Indians) 100 0 0 0
Philippinos 45 22 27 6
Poles 33 39 20 9
Portuguese 35 53 8 4
Rumanians 34 41 19 6
Russians 33 36 23 8
Sardinians 50 26 19 5
Scotts 51 34 12 3
Serbians 38 42 16 5
Shompen (Nicobars) 100 0 0 0
Slovaks 42 37 16 5
South Africans 45 40 11 4
Spanish 38 47 10 5
Sudanese 62 16 21 0
Swedes 38 47 10 5
Swiss 40 50 7 3
Tartars 28 30 29 13
Thais 37 22 33 8
Turks 43 34 18 6
Ukrainians 37 40 18 6
United Kingdom (GB) 47 42 8 3
USA (US blacks) 49 27 20 4
USA (US whites) 45 40 11 4
USA Blood Types 44 42 10 4
Vietnamese 42 22 30 5

 

Negative? maybe you're mixing me up with another poster.

I don't think modern nomenclature is wrong or negative. The problem is when you falsely apply it to biblical nomenclature.

I do think it would be helpful to get rid of some unnecessary distinctions. I think that's what MLK wanted.

Again, you've missed the point. I don't deny modern nomenclature and modern classifications. Some can be helpful. Some maybe should be dropped. I do, however, advocate using it in its correct modern context, and not applying it to biblical interpretation.

Nomenclature errors can lead to many serious errors in bible interpretation.

 

I agree. And I think modern science has born this out. Humans are the same species and subspecies. Race is an obsolete distinction, that appears to be based solely on appearance.

 

He did.

I like Answers in Genesis' suggestion. We should refer to people groups, rather than races. distinctions in people groups are made from the beginning of history. Shem Ham and Japheth fathered different people groups. Would we really, however, think of them as being difference races?

 

I'm very convincible, just not by bad arguments. You're continually advocating the mixing of biblical and modern scientific nomenclature. Posting more scientific classifications shows you're missing the point I'm making to you.

 

Salty, do you acknowledge there is a definitional difference between the biblical word star, and the modern scientific word, star? Do you think confusing those definitions could cause confusion in biblical interpretation?