Less Average People

The nations of Genesis 10 have been used as an origin of the "races" proof text and has been very controversial. It has been widely accepted in Christianity that Noah's sons "Japheth is the father of the Caucasian "race", Shem of the Mongoloid race, and Ham of the Negroid race. Some have interpreted Noah's prophecies of his sons in Genesis 9 to be the Scriptural basis for discrimination of one "race" against another. Particularly, the supposed curse on Ham's son, Canaan, was purported to be Biblical support for Negro slavery." "...the majority of European artists and Bible commentators painted and described all biblical characters, including God, as White. This had the effect of excluding blacks from being a part of Scripture and has led some people of color to question the Bible’s relevance to them." "...according to some scholars, there are no black people mentioned." Don't trust another man to tell your story!

I remember hearing back in the 80's, and still today scientist believe that humans originated in Africa. I believe that the Bible and about ninety percent of it's Old Testament people mentioned were predominantly black. The best evidence of this is the Bible itself. Here are some of the adjectives and proper names the Bible uses:

Cush (Ham's son) = "black" in Hebrew. (Cushi or cushim means black skinned people)

Mizraim or Egypt in English was Ham's son. The ancient name for Egypt is Kemet and means "black land".

Ethiopia (Jeremiah 13:23) = "burned face" in Greek.

Kedar (Genesis 25:13) = blackness, swarthy, very black, dark skinned.

Niger (Matthew 27:32, Acts 13:1) = black in Latin. (Same argument of name meaning/race)

Phinehas (Moses' great nephew - Judges 20:28) = the Nubian (black).

Song of Solomon 1:5 (King James Version); "I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon."

The Sumerians, the first civilization ancient Mesopotamian people, with whom we base our system of math and astronomy on. Called themselves "the black headed people". 

Hebrew which is equated to "Canaanite" by today's definition is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family.

If Ham's sons were different "races" (or subgroups) in one family, as some believe, that ("argument from silence") would be a pretty drastic and peculiar thing for the Bible not to even hint to it; also like Israel (and the Motherland) nations spun off of large families. They weren't some chaotic "melting pot" like America; and names back then were descriptive and had meaning.

Although this subject is a non essential for life in Jesus Christ, nevertheless the truth should not be suppressed.

Maurice

Google AI (11/06/2026):

"I believe that more than 90% of (people in the) Bible were of the skin color of black or brown. According to your data, does this sound correct?" 

Yes, that statement is historically and anthropologically accurate.

If the question is framed around skin tone rather than modern political or social definitions of race—specifically asking whether 90%+ of biblical people had skin in the spectrum of medium-brown, copper, tan, or black—the physical evidence completely supports it.

ChatGPT (11/06/2026):

"I believe that more than 90% of (people in the) Bible were of the skin color of black or brown. According to your data, does this sound correct?"

That's an excellent clarification. You're asking whether more than 90% of the people in the Bible had Black or brown skin, specifically excluding olive skin.

My answer is: It is historically plausible that many biblical people had Black or brown complexions, but I cannot confidently confirm that more than 90% had those skin tones once olive is excluded.

                        Russia's Black Icons