Individuals like Dante Fortson, and cults like The Black Hebrew Israelites, look at Genesis 10:5, ignorantly focus on the face-value translation in English, and blindly argue that based on this verse only Europeans—the descendants of Japheth—are Gentiles. Is that what this verse is teaching?
Let's look at Noah's three sons, shall we?
Gen. 10:5—By these were the isles of the Gentiles [1471. gowy, גּוֹי] divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי].
Gen. 10:20—These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי].
Gen. 10:31—These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי].
Notice that, contrary to what individuals like Dante Fortson say and what cults like The Black Hebrew Israelites say, that the same Hebrew word is used in all three verses talking about the descendants of Noah's three sons. In the Hebrew, verse 5 reads exactly like this:
From_these were_separated into_their_nations [be·go·w·ye·hem] according_to_their_families according_to_their_language everyone into_their_lands peoples [hag·go·w·yim] the_maritime
The underscores connect words that are translated from a single word in Hebrew. The words "into_their_nations" and "peoples" are the same Hebrew word: 1471. gowy, גּוֹי.
In other words, the last two words of this verse in Hebrew read, "maritime peoples" or "maritime nations." In other words, they formed the coastlands. That is all that the text is trying to tell us. Genesis 10:5 could be correctly rendered as "By these were the nations of the isles divided..."
The other two verses read like this:
These the_sons of_Ham according_to_their_families according_to_
their_languages in_their_lands in_their_nations [be·go·w·ye·hem]
These the_sons of_Shem according_to_their_families according_to_
their_languages in_their_lands according_to_their_nations [le·go·w·ye·hem]
There are 561 occurrences of this word in its various forms in the Bible:
bag·gō·w·yim — 57 Occ.
bə·ḡō·w — 6 Occ.
bə·ḡō·w·yê·hem — 3 Occ.
bə·ḡō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
ḵag·gō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
gō·w — 59 Occ.
gō·w·ya·yiḵ — 1 Occ.
gō·w·yê — 3 Occ.
gō·w·ye·ḵā — 1 Occ.
gō·w·yê — 8 Occ.
gō·w·yî — 1 Occ.
gō·w·yim — 136 Occ.
hag·gō·w — 27 Occ.
hag·gō·w·yim — 180 Occ.
hă·ḡō·w — 1 Occ.
kag·gō·w·yim — 2 Occ.
kə·ḡō·w — 1 Occ.
lag·gō·w — 2 Occ.
lag·gō·w·yim — 14 Occ.
lə·ḡō·w — 14 Occ.
lə·ḡō·w·yê·hem — 1 Occ.
lə·ḡō·w·yim — 3 Occ.
mig·gō·w — 7 Occ.
mig·gō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
ū·ḇag·gō·w·yim — 4 Occ.
ḇag·gō·w·yim — 18 Occ.
wə·ḡō·w — 4 Occ.
wə·ḡō·w·ya·yiḵ — 2 Occ.
wə·ḡō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
wə·hag·gō·w — 1 Occ.
wə·hag·gō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
If the Hebrew form of gowy ends with hem or yim, the word is plural for nations. If the Hebrew form ends with w, the word is typically singular for nation. This word is also used of the Jewish nation, but we will address that later. But this sort of information individuals like Dante Fortson and cults like The Black Hebrew Israelites will not tell you because it undermines their agenda of lies and manipulation.
If the Hebrew word rendered as "Gentiles" in Genesis 10:5 refers only and specifically to the sons of Japheth, as Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites claim, then they have a real conundrum on their hands come Genesis 10:32, and especially Genesis 48:19. You see, they cannot remain consistent with their interpretative method and theology without contradicting themselves and creating monumental problems. After listing the sons and descendants of Japheth, Shem, and Ham, verse 32 says, "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי]; and out of these the nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי] were separated on the earth after the flood." The second usage of the word is the same form as that found in Genesis 10:5: hag·go·w·yim. Using the same word as found translated in verse five, according to the theology of Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites, the second half should read like this: "and out of these, the Gentiles were separated on the earth after the flood." 'These' referring to the descendants of all three of Noah's sons. This contradicts the "only European descendants of Japheth are Gentiles" theory.
This same word, hag·go·w·yim, is used in Jacob's prophetic blessing over Ephraim, the Jewish grandson of Israel (Jacob) himself. As so frequently happens in Scripture, the younger was chosen over the elder. Jacob's blessing said that Ephraim's descendants will become a multitude of "Gentiles," according to the theology of Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites. How do Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites explain how a blessing (on a Jewish individual) is all of a sudden a curse (resulting in Gentile nations) according to their bankrupt and erroneous theology? Ha·go·w·yim has 180 occurrences within Scripture. How much would you like to bet that there are other occurrences that contradict Dante Forton's false theology and that of The Black Hebrew Israelites?
This same word, hag·go·w·yim, is used in Jacob's prophetic blessing over Ephraim, the Jewish grandson of Israel (Jacob) himself. As so frequently happens in Scripture, the younger was chosen over the elder. Jacob's blessing said that Ephraim's descendants will become a multitude of "Gentiles," according to the theology of Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites. How do Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites explain how a blessing (on a Jewish individual) is all of a sudden a curse (resulting in Gentile nations) according to their bankrupt and erroneous theology? Ha·go·w·yim has 180 occurrences within Scripture. How much would you like to bet that there are other occurrences that contradict Dante Forton's false theology and that of The Black Hebrew Israelites?
If by "Gentiles" it only refers to the European nations, then what about all the Asian nations,
such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan,
Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam? Quite obviously these are not Israel, and if they are not
Gentiles, then what are they? And what about all the other black
nations? Even if some were Israel, quite clearly all are not Israel. If
salvation is only offered to Israel and the Gentiles (being only Europeans),
and if these other nations are not Gentiles, then I guess salvation is
not offered to them. Do you see the mess that wrongly dividing the word of truth results in?
History has always taught us that the descendants of Japheth were the Europeans, the descendants of Shem were the Asians, and the descendants of Ham were the Africans. From the descendants of Shem is where the Israelites eventually came from (including nations such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc., and people groups such as Native Americans, Mayans, and Incans).
History has always taught us that the descendants of Japheth were the Europeans, the descendants of Shem were the Asians, and the descendants of Ham were the Africans. From the descendants of Shem is where the Israelites eventually came from (including nations such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc., and people groups such as Native Americans, Mayans, and Incans).
Do we remember what transpired in the last verses of Genesis 9? Ham saw Noah's naked body and went and told his brothers. They went backwards and covered up his body. When Noah awoke, he pronounced a curse upon Ham. Do you remember the words of that curse?
When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant."
Now, the curse specifically names Canaan in our Bibles, and so individuals like Dante Fortson attempt to argue that Ham was not cursed. But the fact of reality is that Ham was cursed, and most severely. Why in our Bibles is Canaan specifically named in the curse despite it having been his father who commited the sin?
In either case, whether the curse was pronounced upon Canaan in order to aggravate Ham's grief and plunge him more deeply into the curse, or whether the text was supposed to be rendered as the father of Canaan, Ham is still the one being cursed. Dante Fortson argues that this correct interpretation of Scripture has been the result of church leaders teaching that Ham was cursed to have black skin and that such has been used to justify slavery. His premise and conclusion are false on so many levels! First, the curse says nothing about the colour of his skin. His descendants would eventually have dark skin, but that is not what the curse said or even what it was about. Second, the text says he and his descendants would be servants to his brothers Shem and Japheth and their descendants—not "slaves." There is a vast world of difference between a servant and a slave.
"When Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the curse, but rather more deeply plunged into it, whilst he is pronounced accursed, not only in his person, (which is manifestly supposed by his commission of that sin for which the curse was inflicted,) but also in his posterity, which doubtless was a great aggravation of his grief; as on the contrary Joseph is said to be blessed when his children are blessed, Gen. 48:15-16. ... This may be an ellipsis, or defect of the word father; for such relative words are ofttimes omitted and understood in Scripture, as Matt. 4:21, James of Zebedee, for the son of Zebedee; John 19:25, Mary of Cleopas, for the wife of Cleopas; Acts 7:16, Emmor of Sychem, for the father of Sychem, as our English translation rightly supplies id from Gen. 33:19. Thus Goliath is put for Goliath's brother, as is evident by comparing 2 Sam. 21:19, with 1 Chron. 20:5. So here Canaan may be put for the father of Canaan, as the Arabic translation hath it, that is, Ham, as the Seventy here render it." —Matthew PooleIf it is a matter of an ellipsis, a defect of the word father, then the text would actually read like this:
When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be the father of Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let the father of Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let the father of Canaan be his servant."Dante Fortson tries to explain all of this away. He argues about people who would falsely use the word "uncovered" instead of the correct word "saw," but then he commits the same false teaching. Despite the text very clearly stating that "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father," he attempts to argue that it was actually Canaan who saw it. He also ignores the text when it very clearly states that he "told his two brothers outside." According to Genesis 10:6, Canaan had three (3) brothers—not two. If he told any of his brothers, why would his uncles come and cover the body?
In either case, whether the curse was pronounced upon Canaan in order to aggravate Ham's grief and plunge him more deeply into the curse, or whether the text was supposed to be rendered as the father of Canaan, Ham is still the one being cursed. Dante Fortson argues that this correct interpretation of Scripture has been the result of church leaders teaching that Ham was cursed to have black skin and that such has been used to justify slavery. His premise and conclusion are false on so many levels! First, the curse says nothing about the colour of his skin. His descendants would eventually have dark skin, but that is not what the curse said or even what it was about. Second, the text says he and his descendants would be servants to his brothers Shem and Japheth and their descendants—not "slaves." There is a vast world of difference between a servant and a slave.
In the Greek, we have this word: 1484. ethnos, ἔθνος. There are 163 occurrences of this word in its various forms in the Bible.
Is it not amazing how real study to correctly divide the truth of God's Word actually works? Rather than having an agenda and trying to twist Scripture through various efforts of eisegetical gymnastics and fallacious arguments?
ἔθνη — 53 Occ.Neither the Hebrew word, gowy, (גּוֹי), nor the Greek word, ethnos (ἔθνος), mean "Gentile." Both of these words mean "a multitude, nation, people, country (esp. foreign); heathen; pagan," which is why they are both used to speak of the Jewish nation as well as other nations. God tells Abraham He will make a great gowy out of him (Gen. 12:2). God tells Moses He will make a great gowy out of him (Ex. 32:10). The gowy in Leviticus 18:26 is the Jewish nation. Likewise, ethnos is used of the Jewsish nation in Luke 7:5; 23:2; John 11:48, 50-53; 18:35; Acts 10:22; 24:2; etc. The English word "Gentile" is a transliteration of the Latin gentīlis, which means "of or belonging to the same people, clan, tribe, stock, or nation; heathen; pagan." It is not a translation of, nor the definition of, either the Hebrew or Greek words. It is simple common sense that the transliteration of a Latin word cannot be the translation, or definition, of a Hebrew or Greek word.
ἔθνει — 7 Occ.
ἔθνεσιν — 32 Occ.
ἐθνῶν — 46 Occ.
ἔθνος — 18 Occ.
ἔθνους — 7 Occ.
Is it not amazing how real study to correctly divide the truth of God's Word actually works? Rather than having an agenda and trying to twist Scripture through various efforts of eisegetical gymnastics and fallacious arguments?