"Bro. Gan, I read in (xxxx) and the brother said that Enoch was the last of the pure seed firstborn. But I cannot accept that. I know that it was Noah, just like you do. But can you enlighten me a little further on the genealogical lineage?  Please also enlighten more about Ham's sin. I don't understand why Noah had to curse Canaan."


Let's look at the genealogy in Genesis 5 and prove some facts.


        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
of  the                         \\
Pure Sethic                  ``===>  3 sons -- mixed seeds -- HYBRIDS --  Japheth,  Ham,  Shem
Firstborn               "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).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


GENESIS 9:18-27

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 overspread.
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 unto him.
25  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26  And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
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?

Why did 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" (Exod.21:23-25).

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 "lay 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:

JUDGES 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,

JUDGES 16:1: Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.

JUDGES 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.

RUTH 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 SAMUEL 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.

1 SAMUEL 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 KINGS 1:4: And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

EZEKIEL 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.

MATTHEW 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 understandings).

Other points of proofs are available in The Original Sin message found under [Appendix 6.]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~