What started false religions? In the beginning, everyone knew Noah and believed in the One True God. The Scriptures call Babylon the mother of all false religions, because under Nimrod the original false religious system was successfully implemented. We learn from the Church fathers that the root of this madness started with the sons of Ham.
Fallen angels taught men the use of magical incantations that would force demons to obey man. After the flood Ham the son of Noah unhappily discovered this and taught it to his sons. This became ingrained into the Egyptians, Persians, and Babylonians. Ham died shortly after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Nimrod, called Ninus by the Greeks, was handed this knowledge and by it caused men to go away from the worship of God and go into diverse and erratic superstitions and they began to be governed by the signs in the stars and motions of the planets. (Recognitions of Clement 4.26–29)
Nimrod turned the government into a tyranny and set up twelve idols of wood named after the twelve months of the year, each representing a sign of the Zodiac. He commanded everyone to worship each idol in its proper month. (Jasher 9:8–10; Ancient Post-Flood History—Ken Johnson, ThD)[i]
All Pagan Roads Lead to Babylon
As stated in the previous entry, Noah and his family were selected by God to be saved from the Flood on the ark because they remained genetically pure (or still fully human). Unfortunately, the purity did not extend to all of their minds as well. Resting within the safety of the ark lay the seeds of the arcane knowledge given by the Watchers of Genesis 6. Ham became a sleeper agent of darkness, if you will, infected with the forbidden knowledge that resulted in the severe judgment of God upon humanity. Within the mind and heart of Ham were the foundational concepts upon which Babylon and Egypt were built (and upon which the kingdom of the Antichrist is being built today).
We find in Genesis 9:20–23 that the seeds of the Watchers already began to sprout within the heart of Ham.
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
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. (Genesis 9:20–23)
There is much speculation as to the actual sin of Ham contained in these verses. Was this sin the great dishonor and disrespect that Ham had shown to Noah? Alternatively, was it possible that he had sexually violated Noah in some way? Over the centuries, Christian theologians and rabbinical scholars have debated these issues. The New American Commentary dives into the subject and provides a sensible conclusion:
What was Ham’s sin? Why did Noah invoke curses against Canaan instead of the culprit, Ham ([Genesis 9]:25)? The meaning of the phrase “saw his father’s nakedness” has been variously interpreted. Both Jewish and Christian interpretation speculated that Ham’s deed was a sexual offense since the same language is found in the Pentateuch describing sexual transgressions. Further support was garnered from v. 25, which refers to what Ham “had done to him.” Many suppose that the original story contained the sordid details but that they were excised for reasons of propriety when later placed in the Torah. Castration was thought to have been the crime by some Jewish and Christian interpreters, and others argued for a homosexual act. Jewish midrash explained that physical abuse by Ham answered why the curse was directed against Canaan; this act prevented Noah from having a fourth son, and thus Canaan as Ham’s fourth son should suffer (Gen. Rab. 36.7). This may have been fueled by the absence of any notice that additional children were born to Noah, since all the other patriarchs are said to have had “other sons and daughters” (5:3–32; 11:10–25). This lack of reference to other children, however, may be due to the author’s desire to parallel the Sethite and Shemite lines, which both end with three sons (5:32; 11:26).
Concerning a homosexual desire or act, there is no indication that a sexual indiscretion occurred when Ham viewed his father or that Ham desired his father in an illicit way. Levitical language for the homosexual act is “to lie with a male,” which we do not find here. “Saw”…is the common term for observing and does not convey necessarily the idea of sexual lust; the term can be used in this way (cf. 6:2; 34:2), but such meaning must be derived from the context and not the term by itself. On the contrary, the expressions “to see…nakedness” (Lev 20:17) and “to uncover…nakedness” are used of heterosexual actions, not homosexual encounters. The expression in our passage is not a figurative statement since the two sons actually cover up the exposed nakedness of their father, who was in a drunken stupor in the tent. This is reinforced by the description “their faces were turned.” If in fact some lecherous deed occurred inside the tent, it is inexplicable why the covering of their father is in juxtaposition to Ham’s act. On other occasions Genesis is straightforward in its description of sexual misconduct (e.g., 19:5, 30–35; 34:2). There is no reason to assume that homosexuality or, for that matter, heterosexual misconduct would be described euphemistically by the author.
Ham’s reproach was not in seeing his father unclothed, though this was a shameful thing (cp. Hab 2:15), but in his outspoken delight at his father’s disgraceful condition. The penalty against Ham’s son may be thought too severe for mere sibling gossip, but this is because we fail to understand the gravity of Ham’s offense. We have commented elsewhere (see 2:25; 3:7) that nakedness was shameful in Hebrew culture. In later Israel specific prohibitions guarded against the public exposure of the genitals and buttocks (e.g., Exod 20:26; 28:42), and nakedness was commonly associated with public misconduct (e.g., Exod 32:25). It is not surprising then that the euphemism “nakedness” was used for the shameful travesty of incest. Ham ridiculed the “old man’s” downfall. In the ancient world insulting one’s parents was a serious matter that warranted the extreme penalty of death. Mosaic legislation reflected this sentiment. This patriarchal incident illustrated the abrogation of the Fifth Commandment, “Honor your father and mother.” To do so means divine retaliation, for the crime is not against parent alone but is viewed as contempt for God’s hierarchical order in creation. Shem and Japheth, unlike Ham, treated Noah with proper respect. They refused to take advantage of him despite his vulnerable condition.[ii]
The book of James warns us about wisdom that does not come from God. This dark wisdom produces specific effects within the souls of men.
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. (James 3:15–16)
I believe that the dark wisdom of the Watchers was brewing within the mind of Ham. The result was that he became arrogant, boastful, and disrespectful (just to name a few). Instead of showing honor to his father and covering his nakedness, he mocked his father and made sure this disgrace was brought to everyone’s attention. Once Noah realized what had happened, he uttered a curse that flowed through Ham to his son Canaan. The rabbis of old have debated why this curse was directed upon Canaan and not Cush. Some have concluded that he was an active participant in the disgrace and held the tent open for all to see. This, of course, would be mere speculation as the Scriptures are silent regarding it.
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. (Genesis 9:25)
In the sad history of slavery in Great Britain and the United States, there were individuals who justified its practice by quoting Genesis 9:25. However, this misinterpretation does not bode well in the light of historical facts. Finis Dake provides us with a quick summary of the descendants of Ham and where they settled:
1. Cush (Gen. 10:6–12; 1 Chr. 1:8–10; Isa. 11:11), progenitor of various Ethiopian tribes that settled south of Egypt and also overran Arabia, Babylonia, and India.
2. Mizraim (Gen. 10:6, 13–14; 1 Chr. 1:8–11), progenitor of various Egyptian tribes. Mizraim means “double.” Tribes of the double Egypt (upper and lower Egypt), called the land of Ham, came from him (Ps. 78:51; 105:23–27; 106:22). The Philistines also came from Mizraim (Gen. 10:14).
3. Phut (Gen. 10:6; Ezek. 27:10), progenitor of the Libyans and other tribes in northern Africa (Ezek. 27:10; 30:5; 38:5; Jer. 46:9; Nah. 3:9).
4. Canaan (Gen. 10:6,15–19; 9:18–27; 1 Chr. 1:8–13), progenitor of peoples that settled mainly in Palestine, Arabia, Tyre, Sidon, and other parts of the land promised to Abraham. These nations are often mentioned in connection with Israel (Gen. 10:15–19; 15:18–21; Dt. 7:1–3; Josh. 12).[iii]
Since Canaan’s descendants stayed primarily in the Middle East, there was no validity to their claim that this referred to the Africans sold into slavery. What we do find is that Ham’s children became major problems for God’s people throughout history, both in ancient times and today.
From a mystery religion[iv] point of view, we can examine how the Watchers’ seeds of defiance spread like wildfire through Ham’s children.
1. Cush
Cush is named in the Bible as the father of Nimrod. Ancient history tells us quite a bit more about this barely footnoted individual within the Word of God. Cush was a leading influence in both the formation of Babylon and in the construction of the Tower of Babel. As we begin to investigate Cush historically, it is obvious that the seeds of the Watchers had taken root and begun to spring forth. Alexander Hislop, in his classic work The Two Babylons, sheds light on both the activities of Cush and the various names he bore within ancient history:
Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of that assumption itself. Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been the founder of Babylon. If Ninus was in reality the first king of Babylon, how could Belus or Bel, his father, be said to be the founder of it? Both might very well be, as will appear if we consider who was Bel, and what we can trace of his doings. If Ninus was Nimrod, who was the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for “Cush begat Nimrod” (Gen[esis] 10:8); and Cush is generally represented as having been a ringleader in the great apostacy. But again, Cush, as the son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the “son of Ham.”
Gregory attributes to Cush what was said more generally to have befallen his son; but his statement shows the belief in his day, which is amply confirmed from other sources, that Cush had a preeminent share in leading mankind away from the true worship of God. The composition of Her-mes is, first, from “Her,” which, in Chaldee, is synonymous with Ham, or Khem, “the burnt one.” As “her” also, like Ham, signified “The hot or burning one,” this name formed a foundation for covertly identifying Ham with the “Sun,” and so deifying the great patriarch, after whose name the land of Egypt was called, in connection with the sun. Khem, or Ham, in his own name was openly worshipped in later ages in the land of Ham; but this would have been too daring at first. By means of “Her,” the synonym, however, the way was paved for this. “Her” is the name of Horus, who is identified with the sun, which shows the real etymology of the name to be from the verb to which I have traced it. Then, secondly, “Mes,” is from Mesheh (or, without the last radical, which is omissible), Mesh, “to draw forth.” In Egyptian, we have Ms in the sense of “to bring forth”, which is evidently a different form of the same word. In the passive sense, also, we find Ms used. The radical meaning of Mesheh in Stockii Lexicon, is given in Latin “Extraxit,” and our English word “extraction,” as applied to birth or descent, shows a connection between the generic meaning of this word and birth. This derivation will be found to explain the meaning of the names of the Egyptian kings, Ramesses and Thothmes, the former evidently being “the son of Ra,” or the sun; the latter in like manner, being “the son of Thoth.” For the very same reason Her-mes is the “Son of Her, or Ham,” the burnt one—that is, Cush.
Now, Hermes was the great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans as the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods. The distinguished Gesenius identifies him with the Babylonian Nebo, as the prophetic god; and a statement of Hyginus shows that he was known as the grand agent in that movement which produced the division of tongues. His words are these: “For many ages men lived under the government of Jove [evidently not the Roman Jupiter, but the Jehovah of the Hebrews], without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes), the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began.”[v] (Emphasis added)
/Read the rest of this article at -
http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/Shinar4.htm
