Jump to content


Photo

What About Ham Being Cursed For Seeing His Father's Nakedness?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#41 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 October 2006 - 03:14 PM

I think this has reached a point of diminishing returns, and we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don’t think you made a compelling case for your claim, it was mostly speculation with a logical error thrown in. :) I hope you take this in the intent given, but an observation I’d like to offer is that you seem to a difficult time admitting any kind of on your part. The hasty generalization was especially obvious, but you remained steadfast that your claim "stands until disproven”. I suggest you read Wikipedia’s descriptionof a hasty generalization and hopefully in your next encounter on this topic you re-consider using this easy-to-spot fallacious argument. :)

Why I was compelled to mention this seeming immutability on your part has more to do with your tag line than anything else. Regarding the Noah/Ham incident, there really isn’t one side that can make a slam-dunk case, and it really isn’t critical to know which version is correct. However, I believe there is a slam-dunk case against OEC theology, and it's a far more important issue. The Genesis account in the Bible is written as historical text and not allegory or poetry, and clearly portrays a ~6000K earth (based on genealogies) and a global flood. While belief in OEC is not a salvation issue, it is a slippery slope issue. I hope to start a thread on this in the near future.

Even rape does not deserve the cursing of an entire lineage of people.


There was one additional point I wanted to make. An entire lineage of people wasn’t cursed in the sense of some sort of punishment from God, since this would contradict scripture (Deut. 24:16, 2 Cor. 5:10, and an application example in 2 Kings 14:1-6). Ham’s descendants were cursed in the sense that the lineage was the result of an unclean act, and such sin even today pretty much curses the family and it’s descendants, especially the immediate descendants. For example, kids from broken families have a much higher probability of themselves having broken relationships. Kids whose parents use foul language are themselves more likely to use foul language. Sons of wife-beaters are more likely to do the same, etc. All this is of their own doing (they’ve cursed themselves and increase the likelihood they’ve done the same to their kids by being a poor example); its not some curse or punishment from God.

Fred

#42 jay7

jay7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Washington

Posted 23 October 2006 - 07:35 PM

I think this has reached a point of diminishing returns, and we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don’t think you made a compelling case for your claim, it was mostly speculation with a logical error thrown in.  I hope you take this in the intent given, but an observation I’d like to offer is that you seem to a difficult time admitting any kind of on your part. The hasty generalization was especially obvious, but you remained steadfast that your claim "stands until disproven”. I suggest you read Wikipedia’s descriptionof a hasty generalization and hopefully in your next encounter on this topic you re-consider using this easy-to-spot fallacious argument.


*rolls eyes*


Why I was compelled to mention this seeming immutability on your part has more to do with your tag line than anything else.



I see.


Regarding the Noah/Ham incident, there really isn’t one side that can make a slam-dunk case, and it really isn’t critical to know which version is correct. However, I believe there is a slam-dunk case against OEC theology, and it's a far more important issue. The Genesis account in the Bible is written as historical text and not allegory or poetry, and clearly portrays a ~6000K earth (based on genealogies) and a global flood. While belief in OEC is not a salvation issue, it is a slippery slope issue. I hope to start a thread on this in the near future.


It is equally slippery on the YEC but to each his own. The Earth is very clearly Billions of years old. Genealogies cannot tell us the Earth's age.


QUOTE
Even rape does not deserve the cursing of an entire lineage of people.


There was one additional point I wanted to make. An entire lineage of people wasn’t cursed in the sense of some sort of punishment from God, since this would contradict scripture (Deut. 24:16, 2 Cor. 5:10, and an application example in 2 Kings 14:1-6). Ham’s descendants were cursed in the sense that the lineage was the result of an unclean act, and such sin even today pretty much curses the family and it’s descendants, especially the immediate descendants. For example, kids from broken families have a much higher probability of themselves having broken relationships. Kids whose parents use foul language are themselves more likely to use foul language. Sons of wife-beaters are more likely to do the same, etc. All this is of their own doing (they’ve cursed themselves and increase the likelihood they’ve done the same to their kids by being a poor example); its not some curse or punishment from God.


There is no evidence that Ham was the product of an unclean act and this would not curse an entire lineage of people as you have suggested. God spoke through Noah in the form of prophecy and it was God's will that Ham and his children be cursed for what he did. It may not seem fair and isn't the normal punishment for rape according to the law but it was the punishment God wanted.

Anyways, thanks for your participation.

#43 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 24 October 2006 - 03:47 PM

*rolls eyes*

View Post


I probably deserved this reaction to my criticism, which is never easy to give, I just hoped you would take it the right way (I often do not do the best job in conveying criticism that I think is important for the person to hear). As fallible human beings, we should try our very best not to rely on our own understanding when interpreting the Bible (Prov 3:5), or the opinion of others (Psalms 118:8). I thought your comment that “Correct interpretation can only be decided by spirit led teachers.” (in the ‘Contradiction’ thread), was very revealing. It’s not only unscriptural, it also seems to match the mind-set of OECers I’ve met who often appeal to men (such as Hugh Ross) to tell them what the scripture is saying, instead of allowing the plain meaning of the scripture to speak forth. Scripture is plain for all spirit-led believers (Prov 8:8), and is not written for just the intellectual to understand and then explain to the simple, but is for the simple to understand on their own (Ps 119:130). I again hope to start a separate thread on OEC theology within the week to carry forward this train of thought for further debate.

Back to this thread, you are now claiming God will punish children for their father’s sin. This is clearly wrong since it contradicts scripture. I again would refer you to Deut. 24:16, 2 Cor. 5:10, and the application example in 2 Kings 14:1-6.

Fred

#44 jay7

jay7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Washington

Posted 24 October 2006 - 06:24 PM

I thought your comment that “Correct interpretation can only be decided by spirit led teachers.” (in the ‘Contradiction’ thread), was very revealing. It’s not only unscriptural, it also seems to match the mind-set of OECers I’ve met who often appeal to men


Its not unscriptural. No one can rightly teach nor understand the bible unless they have the Holy Spirit. Don't stumble over my use of "teachers" by assuming this is different than believers who teach.



Back to this thread, you are now claiming God will punish children for their father’s sin. This is clearly wrong since it contradicts scripture. I again would refer you to Deut. 24:16, 2 Cor. 5:10, and the application example in 2 Kings 14:1-6.


Sins don't pass from father to son but a curse can and did.

#45 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:03 PM

No one can rightly teach nor understand the bible unless they have the Holy Spirit.

View Post


There are surface texts that unbelievers can properly interpret, such as “though shalt not murder”, but I agree that to understand most scripture in general requires “the fear of the Lord” (Prov 1:7) and the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13) to guide us.

However, this is besides the point. You claimed only believers who are teachers can determine correct interpretation. It therefore follows that those Christians who were not given the gift of teaching must rely on interpretation from man. This is what I am claiming is not scriptural, so the burden is on you to defend your claim, using scripture. I’ve already listed scripture in my prior post that contradicts your claim (Ps 118:8, Prov 8:8, Ps 119:130).

Don't stumble over my use of "teachers" by assuming this is different than believers who teach.


I did assume you meant believers who teach. One of the gifts believers may receive is teaching, though most probably don’t (see James 3:1). Being a teacher however isn’t a condition to determining, or presiding over, the correct interpretation. So it is probably better stated as follows: “Correct interpretation can only be discerned by spirit led believers”.

I made many of these same comments to you in the ‘Contradiction’ thread, so please reply to this part of my post there to keep things here from veering too far off track. Here's the post I made to you:

http://www.evolution...findpost&p=9291

Sins don't pass from father to son but a curse can and did.


You are avoiding the question. Does God punish kids for the sins committed by their father, yes or no? If no, are you claiming a curse (as you define it) is not punishment?

Fred

#46 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 26 October 2006 - 02:56 PM

[Note: First part of Jay's reply was moved to the Bible Q&A section under the Contradiction' thread, since it was a response to comments I made there. You may find his post and my response here-Fred]

Does God punish kids for the sins committed by their father, yes or no? 


God did this in the past but no longer according to this verse:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

The new covenant changed everything.


Those are interesting passages. Jeremiah wrote these in the time of the captivity, so keep this context in mind. The children were indirectly paying for the sins of their fathers by also being held in captivity. It was not a direct punishment for their father’s sins, but more a consequence, or a “curse”. :) Just as I mentioned before with the broken family analogy, kids often pay for the recklessness and sins of their parents. They were cursed for their parents behaviour, just as Ham's decendants were cursed for his behavior. This Jeremiah passage was a prophecy of good and “sweet” news (Jer 31:26) that the captivity would soon be over, it is not a passage saying that God will no longer punish children for their father’s sin.

Note that the edict in Deut 24:16 came long before the captivity. "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” - Deut. 24:16
So when you claim God punished children for their father’s sin before the captivity, it is in direct contradiction with Deut 24:16, as well as the application example in 2 Kings 14:5-6 that also precedes the captivity:

Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king. But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the LORD commanded, saying, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin." - 2 Kings 14:5-6

Fred

#47 jay7

jay7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Washington

Posted 26 October 2006 - 03:13 PM

So when you claim God punished children for their father’s sin before the captivity, it is in direct contradiction with Deut 24:16, as well as the application example in 2 Kings 14:5-6 that also precedes the captivity:


Should I even post anymore? You keep adding words to my statements that I never said! I refuse to have discussions with someone that makes up statements never uttered not to mention removing parts of a discussion to another location even though the conversation is being conducted and instigated here.

#48 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 26 October 2006 - 03:25 PM

Should I even post anymore? You keep adding words to my statements that I never said! I refuse to have discussions with someone that makes up statements never uttered not to mention removing parts of a discussion to another location even though the conversation is being conducted and instigated here.

View Post


Jay, in response to whether or not God punishs children for their father's sin, you said: "God did this in the past but no longer according to this verse" [emphasis added] You then quoted Jeremiah at the time of captivity. You clearly claimed that God previously punished kids for their fathers sin but stopped doing it after the new covenant. I did not put words in your mouth.

I also asked you to respond to the unrelated topic involving spirit led teachers in the original forum where you made the claim and where I first responded to it. You did not do this so I moved it there for you. This was for the convenience of the audience, and to keep this thread on topic, I'm sorry to hear this bothers you.

Fred

#49 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 29 December 2006 - 10:53 AM

thought I would add another possibility to all of this...

Noah being drunk: it appears to have been accidental, as he is never spoken poorly of for this act. How would a mature man get drunk accidently? Consider what happens when you are at a high altitude -- when the air pressure is lower, the same glass of wine that did nothing at sea level will make you tipsy in Denver. I have questioned for some time whether or not Noah's drunkenness was the result of a drop in air pressure after the Flood.

What did Ham do? I do not read in the ancien (Alexandrian) LXX or the King James or the NIV that he 'uncovered' his father's nakedness, but that he SAW it.

This means that Noah divested himself of his cloak when he started to get flushed, but then it was too late. What had been quite comfortable and safe to drink before the Flood was making him passed-out drunk now.

There is an interesting point in the ancient Alexandrian text. It does not say that the other brothers took A cloak, but took THE cloak and covered their father with it.

From here, I want to mention something that we find in extra-biblical Jewish literature and legend. The legend goes that the clothes or covering that God made for Adam was passed down as a sign of authority, and that it was something Noah received and which he brought through the Flood. Remember how Esau spurned his birthright for a mess of pottage cooked by Jacob? These same legends state that the reason for this was that he had stolen that same cloak, having come back from Abraham's funeral and felt that with the authority the cloak gave him that he did not need any birthright from his own family.

Be that as it may, if there is any truth in the old legend at all, then it may be that Ham took that same cloak his father had taken off, thereby trying to claim authority and supremacy in the family. This would have been the reason, then that Noah talks about Canaan, Ham's son, indicating that there will not only NOT be leadership in that line, but that the line of Canaan, Ham's oldest (who would have gotten the authority) would be a line of slaves instead.

At any rate, it is another possible explanation and one that we think deserves consideration. The biblical phrase that Ham SAW his father's nakedness is not the same as him actively uncovering it. In fact, it may not be that his father was entirely buff naked, but that he was unconscious and without the cloak on which allowed Ham to take the cloak...

One more interesting note, linguistically -- the name "Ham" evidently means 'burnt one', indicating a possible dark skin color. It is a very easy phonetic slide from Ham to Herm, which meant "burning one." It has been argued from this that he may have ended up the prototype of the mythological sun god -- which would have been in direct 'competition' with God Himself. Two generations later we have the tower of Babel, meant to reach, or challenge the heavens. The name Cush, father of Nimrod, comes down to us today in our own language as 'chaos' -- and the legends are that he was the architect of Babel.

The name Nimrod is actually 'nimr-rud', which means 'leopard subduer' and so was probably a title. He is the same as the 'Ninus' of other legends. His cloak of authority was the leopard coat. We see that spotted coats remained the sign of authority from that time on, whether in the Mayans across the Atlantic or down to our time with the ermine of European royalty. It's an interesting connection. It also points out the assumed importance of the cloak or robe. Then we remember that Jacob himself made a special coat for his son, Joseph, the eldest of Rachel, his favorite wife. This would have indicated that Jacob's choice of who would receive the birthright was not his actual firstborn (Simeon), but rather Joseph. This would also help explain the hatred of the other brothers for Joseph.

Just some thoughts...

#50 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 December 2006 - 10:48 PM

Your post raises an interesting possibility, and would at least make more sense as to why Noah would “cuirse” Ham. However… <_<

What did Ham do? I do not read in the ancien (Alexandrian) LXX or the King James or the NIV that he 'uncovered' his father's nakedness, but that he SAW it.


Consider this verse in Habakkuk:

"Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle, Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!” Hab 2:15

I believe this supports that “uncovering” and “looking” are the same thing when used in light of Leviticus 20. It seems far more likely a man would get another man drunk so he can sleep with the man’s wife, than to simply see a drunk man naked (stop chuckling out there, I know that sounds like a line out of the movie ‘Airplane’ :blink:). It also does not fit with the type of sins being described in Hab 2. God is condemning all kinds of violence and bloodshed, yet tossed in the middle is a simple case of seeing another person naked? It makes much more sense that Leviticus 20:11 and 20:20-21 is in play here, namely adultery, one of those sins God abhors (see Prov 6:16)

This is further bolstered by Isa 57:8 and Ezek 23:18. In the Isaiah verse, I think it is clear that seeing nudity and S@xual intercourse are the same thing, but God is a gentleman and says things in a more polite way:

For you have uncovered yourself to those other than Me, And have gone up to them; You have enlarged your bed And made a covenant with them; You have loved their bed, Where you saw their nudity. (Isa 57:8)

In the Ezekiel verse, Harlotry is synonymous with prostitution, not stripping:

She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness. (Ezek 23:18)

So, I still think the S@xual sin version still fits scripture the best and also makes the most sense as to why Noah would be so incredibly upset. But it’s not a slam dunk, and I do view your suggestion as a reasonable possibility. I don’t accept the traditional view that Ham simply saw him naked, because it goes against God’s very nature to issue such a harsh punishment impacting generations of people, for something so trivial, that is not on God’s abomination list.

I liked your suggestion that high altitude might have had an impact on the drunkedness, that is a good insight! Other scholars have theorized that something happened to the grapes after the flood to make them more "alcoholic", or something to that effect.

Fred

#51 jay7

jay7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Washington

Posted 15 January 2007 - 07:31 AM

One more interesting note, linguistically -- the name "Ham" evidently means 'burnt one', indicating a possible dark skin color.


Ham does not mean burnt, or burnt one. Ham means "hot" and this has no bearing at all to skin color.

#52 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 January 2007 - 08:30 AM

Ham does not mean burnt, or burnt one. Ham means "hot" and this has no bearing at all to skin color.

View Post


This was a good point to raise, Jay. While its possible Ham was of darker skin, we really don’t know, at least from scripture. Your point is worth mentioning because some people in the later centuries unfortunately twisted this loose interpretation to justify enslavement of Africans.

Fred

#53 jay7

jay7

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Washington

Posted 16 January 2007 - 04:52 AM

This was a good point to raise, Jay. While its possible Ham was of darker skin, we really don’t know, at least from scripture. Your point is worth mentioning because some people in the later centuries unfortunately twisted this loose interpretation to justify enslavement of Africans.

Fred

View Post


And the other strange thing about this notion is that many try to take the thought of this name meaning "dark" or "burnt" and apply it to Canaan. These people were Adamites and I believe they were of lighter skin. It is a true tragedy what some in ignorance and greed have done to other men in the name of God and the bible.

#54 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 May 2011 - 07:45 AM

A skeptic once wrote in my guest book ridiculing this passage in the Bible:

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
    "Cursed be Canaan!
    The lowest of slaves
    will he be to his brothers."
(Genesis 9:20-25)

...Ham was not cursed for covering a naked Noah, he was cursed for sleeping with Noah’s wife (his mom)! The Bible explains it in a polite fashion by describing this vile act as “uncovering Noah’s nakedness”.

View Post

There is one thing that points to Ham having S@xual intercourse with his mother bearing an incesteous son (Canaan). And that's because Canaan is called a servant of his brothers. OK, the term brother could have used as figurative speech. But there is some indication that Ham acted s*xually and that this may have involved s@x with his mother. Alternatively I have heard that Ham committed a H*mos*xual act to Noah.

Concerning blessing and curse, I'd rather see the meaning in adapting the people for the living conditions and providence after the flood.

#55 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 May 2011 - 10:36 AM

There is one thing that points to Ham having S@xual intercourse with his mother bearing an incesteous son (Canaan). And that's because Canaan is called a servant of his brothers. OK, the term brother could have used as figurative speech. But there is some indication that Ham acted s*xually and that this may have involved s@x with his mother. Alternatively I have heard that Ham committed a H*mos*xual act to Noah.

Concerning blessing and curse, I'd rather see the meaning in adapting the people for the living conditions and providence after the flood.

View Post


It's more like Ham tried to usurp Noah's authority by telling everyone what Noah did. For Noah to retain headship over the people. And seeking counsel from God. Means he had to have their respect for living a Godly life. What ham attempted is the same thing that happens today when a preacher sins and it ends up in the news. They usually lose their position. ham was trying to discredit His father to make him lose his position guiding the people. The people are not going to follow someone they have lost respect for.

To not curse Ham, would show his inability to control his own family and keep family matters to themselves. So Ham was basically a traitor for what he did.

Example: What if you got into a drunken state and did some ungodly stuff. Your son tells all the neighbors what you did, then showed up at your work and told them also. You might get away with it over time when it became boring to talk about. But back in Noah's time, that was not accepted. It would be like going to church and the preacher showing p*rn as today's sermon. Laying naked in the tent with it open was like p*rn show in those days.

The other 2 brothers showed respect by covering their father. Notice that the Bible says: 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.

And what had Ham done? 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Now how did Noah find out when he woke up? The people walking past his tent were probably laughing at him and told him. Because when do you usually wake up when you were drunk the night before? Late afternoon. So the word got around by then. Noah held a p*rn showing in his tent, and ham saw it and told everyone. That is what he did to his father. Nothing s*xual.

And on top of all that, back then they stoned you for having same s*x relations. If Ham would have voiced that to his brothers or the people in the camp, he would have been dead before morning. So did Ham have s*x with Noah? Nope.

That was a lie thought up by some atheists. To bad a bunch of Christians bought into that.

#56 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 04 June 2011 - 05:43 PM

So the word got around by then. Noah held a p*rn showing in his tent, and ham saw it and told everyone. That is what he did to his father. Nothing s*xual.

And on top of all that, back then they stoned you for having same s*x relations. If Ham would have voiced that to his brothers or the people in the camp, he would have been dead before morning. So did Ham have s*x with Noah? Nope.

That was a lie thought up by some atheists. To bad a bunch of Christians bought into that.

View Post


I believe it is very clear that it was a sexual sin - not homosexuality, but insest. I would ask why Genesis 9:22 be an exception to an otherwise clear Hebrew idiom that to uncover someone's nakedness is to sleep with their spouse?

Again, let's look at this very well-established Hebrew idiom:

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Lev 20:11)

‘If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. … ‘If a man takes his brother's wife… He has uncovered his brother's nakedness.’ (Lev 20:20-21)

More examples:

‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness’ (). (Lev 18:8)

This figure of speech is used on other places including Ezekiel 22:10:

In you men uncover their fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity. ()

I think this idiom makes it apparent that Ham slept with his mother and thus why Noah cursed him as a statement of his wickedness.

In the words of Pastor Bob Enyart:

“Canaan’s true story shows the tragic reality of a child being set up to fail by the wickedness of his father. Thus Noah cursed Canaan as a statement of that reality, not as a hex or evil spell, but as a warning to others against following in Ham’s wicked ways. So incest set the background for centuries of conflict between Noah’s Hamitic descendents, especially those through Canaan, against the descendants of Shem, the Semites, especially the Jews, to whom God promised the land of the Canaanites.”

Fred

#57 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 June 2011 - 07:07 PM

If the father's nakedness had to do with his wife, why did the other two sons cover his father while not looking? One cannot cover up incest with a garment.

#58 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 June 2011 - 08:03 AM

If the father's nakedness had to do with his wife, why did the other two sons cover his father while not looking? One cannot cover up incest with a garment.

View Post


I would again appeal to this:

'The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s
nakedness’. (Lev 18:8)

His sons did not cover Noah, they covered his wife. His wife's nakedness was Noah's nakedness as this and other verses reveal to us in scripture. It was the exact idiom used in Gen 9:22, so I would ask, if it is not Noah's wife that is the victim, why is this the only place in scripture that we don't apply this Hebrew idiom?

Also, this truth disarms critics who love to point to this episode in Genesis to mock the Bible, since it really doesn't make much sense for such a severe curse to occur for merely seeing your dad naked. It does make sense if we apply the Hebrew idiom and see that it was incest with his wife, which makes it a big-time problem and justifiable curse.

#59 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 June 2011 - 12:01 PM

I would again appeal to this:

'The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s
nakedness’. (Lev 18:8)

His sons did not cover Noah, they covered his wife. His wife's nakedness was Noah's  nakedness as this and other verses reveal to us in scripture.  It was the exact idiom used in Gen 9:22, so I would ask, if it is not Noah's wife that is the victim, why is this the only place in scripture that we don't apply this Hebrew idiom?

Also, this truth disarms critics who love to point to this episode in Genesis to mock the Bible, since it really doesn't make much sense for such a severe curse to occur for merely seeing your dad naked. It does make sense if we apply the Hebrew idiom and see that it was incest with his wife, which makes it a big-time problem and justifiable curse.

View Post


I find that the Bible to be more specific when something bad happens like this. Plus the standard for right and wrong was much harsher then we would understand. Adultery today is a yawner, back then you were killed for doing that. Yet having incest with your mother is less worse then adultery? If she did not consent, then it's considered rape.

I can see your logic. But being that the Bible was not specific on "exactly" what Ham did, and many "blanks" have to be filled in to make that logic work. Means you could possibly be wrong. Being that if wrong here makes it work more for the other side, is the reason I won't commit. And if I'm wrong, at least it would be not erring in the direction of helping the other side mock the Bible.

And there is another factor to consider here. Since Noah listened to God's counsel. When this happened, do you think God would have not intervened and told Noah to be harsher then he was with Ham? Why was God silent unless the judgment was just?

Here are the reasons I disagree:

1) Is adultery a worse of a sin than incest with a person's mother?
2) How could have Noah known Ham laid with his wife?
3) Then there is the garment issue. What was there to cover up if it was not Noah? It did say Noah laid naked in his tent, did it not?
4) There are to many blanks to fill in here to make it work another way.
5) And if you are in error, your error is helping the atheist mock the Bible.
6) The Bible not being specific on what happened, in my opinion means that more should not be read into it then what is written there.
7) Also, the only person ever mentioned as being naked was Noah. His wife is totally omitted. Why mention Noah got drunk and lay naked in his tent if the nakedness of Noah was his wife and not him?
8) If Noah's wife consented, then it's adultery. If she did not, then it's rape. If I'm not mistaken, people were stoned for both sins back then.

#60 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 06 June 2011 - 10:48 PM

Being that if wrong here makes it work more for the other side, is the reason I won't commit. And if I'm wrong, at least it would be not erring in the direction of helping the other side mock the Bible.

View Post


If this is a tie-breaker criteria for you, then you should be all over the insest explanation offered in this thread, because this passage has long been something critics mock! I can't count the number of times through the years where a Bible skeptic would mock this passage since it makes no sense for such a severe curse to be issued for what seems like a fairly harmless act. The plain text, without the idiom, merely suggests that Ham saw his dad naked. The critics laugh at the Bible and say "Big deal!" and how can we argue with this? They're right, on the surface it shouldn't be a big deal. Well, years later I hear this explanation regarding the Hebrew idiom, and it made total sense, and it totally, I mean totally, defuses the mockers of this passage, it stops them dead in their tracks.

Here are the reasons I disagree:


My responses inline:

Ikester: 1) Is adultery a worse of a sin than incest with a person's mother?

I have to correct an earlier statement I made. Insest back then was not only legal, it was genetically safe and would in many cases be necessary. God did not outlaw insest until several generations after the genetic bottleneck caused by the flood. The fact is, Ham committed the sin of adultery, and perhaps rape, all in one act.

Ikester: 2) How could have Noah known Ham laid with his wife?

Easy! The scripture says Ham told his brothers about it! He probably was bragging about it. In my secular past and the crowds I hung out with, I can't tell you the number of times I heard guys brag about their promiscuous encounters. I'm sure it disgusted his brothers and they went and told Noah. Or maybe Noah found out from his wife, or his daughter in laws. Get a bunch of women together and there is no way this stays a secret. :D (my apologies to the women of this forum for this sexist comment :P )

Ikester: 3) Then there is the garment issue. What was there to cover up if it was not Noah? It did say Noah laid naked in his tent, did it not?

The Hebrew idiom is very clear that this could either be Noah, or his wife. The idiom states that his wife's nakedness is his nakedness, it even says this in the marriage passage, "they shall become one flesh". (Gen 2:24). They covered Noah's wife - to cover Noah's wife's nakedness is to cover Noah's nakedness (Lev 18:8)

Ikester: 4) There are to many blanks to fill in here to make it work another way.

To be completely honest Isaac, I see very few blanks to be filled in, other than less-important details.

Ikester: 5) And if you are in error, your error is helping the atheist mock the Bible.

Again, this is where I strongly disagree, and I think I can easily convince you of this. No need to take my word for it, just go to another forum where atheists reign and ask them what they think of this passage without telling them about the Hebrew idiom. Watch them mock and laugh and say how ridiculous it is for such a severe curse be issued for, by all appearances, a completely harmless thing. Then tell them about the Hebrew idiom, and watch it totally disarm them, because now all the sudden it makes sense that Ham was severely cursed, then watch them change the topic to a different verse in the Bible! I've experienced this reaction many times since I was shown the key that unlocks the mystery behind the Ham curse.

Ikester: 6) The Bible not being specific on what happened, in my opinion means that more should not be read into it then what is written there.

I'm not reading more than what is there. The Hebrew idiom has been defined in over half a dozen places, I believe it is completely reasonable to assume the idiom applies in Genesis 9:22, it fits like a glove (not OJs glove :)).

Ikester: 7) Also, the only person ever mentioned as being naked was Noah. His wife is totally omitted. Why mention Noah got drunk and lay naked in his tent if the nakedness of Noah was his wife and not him?

Already mentioned - the Hebrew idiom means that mentioning Noah is as good as mentioning his wife, they are both one flesh. The idiom is God's polite way to describe a very bad sin.

Ikester: 8) If Noah's wife consented, then it's adultery. If she did not, then it's rape. If I'm not mistaken, people were stoned for both sins back then.

There is no scriptural or historical evidence such crimes were capital offenses back then. The Mosaic law was given after the flood, though the law itself has always been written on the conscience of men (Rom 2:15). In fact the death penalty was not instituted until shortly before the Ham incident (Gen 9:6), but it was only for murder at that time. Remember that the prior recorded murder had not been punishable by death (Cain). Dispensationalists such as myself believe God used this as a teaching lesson to show man the impact of a society with no accountability (Gen 6:5 - Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.). Kind of like today with how the left has stripped accountability from society, where rapists and child molesters are set free only to commit the crime again. I agree with the Bible - string'em up!

Fred




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users