Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fred Williams

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

Recommended Posts

Well, here's another problem with that. Being son's of the mother, how many brothers would kill the other for doing this thing? And guess what, it would be within their right to do it. And Ham would have been more than a fool to tell them because of this. And the people, the rest of the family, could have stoned him for it.

 

So my question would be, how would the other two brothers be able to with hold their temper when Ham told them, if this is what happened?

1200[/snapback]

It actually would not have been within Japheth and Shem's right to kill Ham. Interestingly, God had only recently instituted the death penalty (just a few verses earlier), but for murder only! (see Gen 9:6) Only later in Leviticus did God decree a death penalty for the type of offense Ham committed.

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Admin3

It actually would not have been within Japheth and Shem's right to kill Ham. Interestingly, God had only recently instituted the death penalty (just a few verses earlier), but for murder only! (see Gen 9:6) Only later in Leviticus did God decree a death penalty for the type of offense Ham committed.

 

Fred

1203[/snapback]

Guess I stand corrected. But I still wonder if that's what Ham actually did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Plea for the Innocence of Ham

 

Fred Williams said:

 

Ham...was cursed for sleeping with Noah's wife (his mom)

chance wrote:

 

Ham is cursed for what he did not do

Deacon wrote:

 

Ham was cursed...

More careful reading of our Bibles might help in preventing such misinterpretations as the above. Only Pastor Eynart got it partly right.

 

Ham was at no point cursed by God.

 

Gen 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan....saw....and told...

 

and so was NOT CURSED because he had done nothing wrong.

 

ONLY Canaan was cursed by God (9:25). But Canaan was not even the eldest son of Ham, but the 4th. Ham also had other sons - so why were these not expressly cursed? - Why only Canaan?

 

The key is this sentence:

 

Gen 9:24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

 

"Younger son" does not refer to Ham. The word in fact can mean any descendant, a grandson etc (Strong's 01121). Here "younger son" refers to Canaan and NOT to Ham, as God confirms in the subsequent verse:

 

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren .

 

The name Canaan is derived from "low" or "humiliated" in Hebrew (Strong's 03667). Whatever went on in that tent, Noah of course shifts the blame to Canaan - even though Canaan is the "humiliated" one. That Canaan is the one involved is hinted at by the extra mentions at 9:18 and 9:22 - otherwise why not mention the other sons of Ham?

 

Notice that Noah "knew what his younger son (=Canaan) had done to him" (and not "what he had done to Noah's wife" or anything) - But how could Noah possibly know what had been "done to him" if he had been as drunk and unconscious as is claimed??

 

I doubt if a modern court would accept his claim....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Admin3

It's just one of those things that will be much speculation about until someone in the know on how to decipher info, and confirm it else where in the word, shows up and presents it. For I can see everyone's point. But until someone is able to connect the dots that point to only one out come. I can only disagree. Not that anyone is wrong, that's yet to be proven. but just that what was done is as bad as some say.

 

I think it was something not as worse, but because of the modesty of the people, and being naked. Being exposed in such a manner, was considered just as bad. But, that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it was technically Canaan that was cursed, because he was the result of a perverse union (Ham taking advantage of his mother). But I disagree that it was Canaan who did the evil act in the tent, I think your exegesis to make this claim, based mostly on verse 24 (Gen 9), is a big stretch. The Bible says explicitly that it was Ham in verse 22. When verse 24 subsequently says “When Noah…knew what his younger son had done to him”, it makes much more sense it was Ham in light of verse 22, plus Ham was a “younger son” of Noah. To me the whole thing fits if we trust the Hebrew figure of speech that uncovering your fathers nakedness (Lev 20:11) means Ham slept with his mother, and the result of this perverse union was Canaan.

 

Notice that Noah "knew what his younger son (=Canaan) had done to him" (and not "what he had done to Noah's wife" or anything) - But how could Noah possibly know what had been "done to him" if he had been as drunk and unconscious as is claimed?? I doubt if a modern court would accept his claim....

Here your own words convict your interpretation since you unwittingly admit your interpretation is a contradiction, which offers us further reason why it should be rejected. You are basically saying the Bible was wrong when it recorded that Noah knew what had been done to him (you “doubt if a modern court would accept his claim”). The Hebrew word “knew” according to Strong’s is “ascertain by seeing”. If the version I gave in this thread is correct, then this passage makes perfect sense, and it would *not* be rejected by a modern court. Noah awoke to find out, or “ascertained by seeing”, that his wife had been violated. This is as much a violation of Noah as it is his wife, as they are “one flesh” (Gen 2:24). If someone commits adultery with your wife, would you not take it as an offense against you? Would you not say, “look what this despicable person has done to ME”?

 

Pastor Enyart has since posted his article on this, that I believe covers the topic very well:

 

http://www.kgov.com/docs/CanaanCursed.html

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred,

This topic is pure speculation nothing more.

 

If the scriptures wanted the story to be known in this manner, it would have taught us in this manner, the same way it taught us about rampant incest but for Noah they were willing to "Tone it Down"?...please.

 

Also as when Adam "Knew" his wife...not too complicated, descriptive actions both before and after Noah's lifetime. Sorry if this comes off a little harsh but I think it takes quite a bit of force of the imagination to have come up this one. .now I can see how stories like The Davinci Code get there origins.

 

Peace

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred,

This topic is pure speculation nothing more. 

 

If the scriptures wanted the story to be known in this manner, it would have taught us in this manner, the same way it taught us about rampant incest but for Noah they were willing to "Tone it Down"?...please.

 

Also as when Adam "Knew" his wife...not too complicated, descriptive actions both before and after Noah's lifetime.  Sorry if this comes off a little harsh but I think it takes quite a bit of force of the imagination to have come up this one.  .now I can see how stories like The Davinci Code get there origins.

 

Peace

CJ

7339[/snapback]

Your claim this is "pure speculation", and then comparing it to the DaVinci-style deception is nonsense. An example of “pure speculation” would a claim such as “Noah liked green tea”. The claim I posted in this thread is based on facts and common sense:

 

Fact 1: The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Leviticus 20:11)

 

Fact 2: “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside… When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan!” - Gen 9

 

You are more than welcome to disagree with this and to continue believing that such a harsh curse was the result of Ham seeing his dad naked, which on the surface is a very bizarre reason to curse someone, as just about EVERYONE will attest to (every Christian I’ve ever talked have always been baffled by this passage, as I was). I believe it makes much more sense (and the confusion removed) that Ham would be cursed for sleeping with Noah’s wife, not for seeing Noah naked. We are given keys in the Bible (as the Bible often does, scripture interprets scripture) that gives us the true story of what happened here.

 

Furthermore, outside of the figure of speech used in Lev. 20, where did the Bible use direct words of ‘rampant incest’ in a negative connotation, as you claimed? I could only think of one (1 Cor 5). Yet I find many more uses of the figure of speech in Lev 20 where the context seems very clear (Lev. 18:10, 14, 17-18; 1 Sam. 20:30; Hab. 2:15; Ezek. 22:10-11.)

 

FYI, incest was not outlawed by God until long after the flood, likely when the genetic load of humans reached a point where incest became dangerous. All examples of incest before God outlawed it offer no indication that the practice was immoral in God’s eyes (it also explains how Cain got his wife).

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could Canaan have been Ham's child born from Noah's wife?

8097[/snapback]

Good question, I believe this to be the case. The text does allow for it, and it makes perfect sense. BTW, I do not think Noah put some hex on Canaan, he instead made an observation (and perhaps warning to others) that Canaan was set up to fail coming from such a perverse union, where he had a brother for a father and a grandmother for a mother, and a cousin for his father (among other strange connections). Arkansas suddenly comes to mind. :)

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More careful reading of our Bibles might help in preventing such misinterpretations as the above. Only Pastor Eynart got it partly right.

 

Ham was at no point cursed by God.

 

Gen 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan....saw....and told...

 

and so was NOT CURSED because he had done nothing wrong.

 

ONLY Canaan was cursed by God (9:25). But Canaan was not even the eldest son of Ham, but the 4th. Ham also had other sons - so why were these not expressly cursed? - Why only Canaan?

 

The key is this sentence:

 

Gen 9:24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

THANK YOU! I had been reading this entire thread and until you everyone was constantly misquoting scripture by saying that Ham was cursed when not a word was said against him!

 

I wrote a work on this subject some years ago and will post it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

 

 

 

Now, if Ham secretly had s@x with his own mom, he wouldnt go and tell his brothers about it right? "Hey guess what, I just had s@x with Mom!" I mean, either Ham is utterly retarded and SICK or we are blaming him for a S@xual crime he never committed.

 

See, it is written that Ham only saw the nakedness...someone else uncovered it. That's a BIG difference. Ham was the first to discover the crime!

 

 

 

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

 

 

Heres the key. When this says "his younger son" we have to figure out what Noah meant. The word "younger" really means the youngest here.

 

 

Genesis 42:32 We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.

 

Anytime there are more than two, the word means the youngest else there would be no way to tell which was meant especially if the speaker is the father as all his children would be "younger" than he is.

 

 

Noahs youngest son is Japheth and Japheth didnt even see the nakedness but helped to cover it back up so it couldnt be him. The companion bible makes an error and says that Shem is the youngest but again he isnt guilty of anything either. And Ham is the middle son and was the one who first reported the "crime" so it wasnt him.

 

but what if Noah said "his younger son" and meant Hams youngest son? Or even his youngest grandson as the Hebrew makes no distinction between son and grandson.

 

 

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what HAMS YOUNGEST son had done unto him.

 

or it can be translated this way:

 

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his [youngest] [grand]son had done unto him.

 

 

Hams youngest son and Noahs youngest grandson is Canaan...the same Canaan we were told two strange times that ham was the father of!

 

 

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

 

This is why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham because Canaan was the guilty one!

 

Some think that Ham slept with his mother and she gave birth to Canaan and thats why Canaan was cursed but unless a woman can get pregnant and give birth in one night this couldnt be possible!

 

The uncovering just happened! If Canaan wasnt already a son of Ham then how would Noah even know Canaan's name to curse him, and why would we have been told twice that Ham was already the father of Canaan and again there is no way to even know if the mother got pregnant because its only been a very short time since it happened.

 

Some think the text is written out of order but that is not normally how scripture is presented to us from God. No, there is a simpler and more logical answer.

 

 

So it was Canaan who uncovered Noahs nakedness, and it was Ham that was the first to find out and SEE it. And when Noah awoke he cursed Hams youngest son Canaan. Note again that the nakedness was SEEN by Ham, not that Ham UNCOVERED the nakedness. That's a huge difference that is almost always overlooked.

 

 

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

 

The sin is to UNCOVER it, not to SEE it after it was uncovered by someone else! Ham accidentally saw the nakedness...but he did not intentionally uncover and then see which is a crime in and of itself.

 

 

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

 

 

 

I think its fairly clear that Noah himself is the subject here and that he was drunk and it was HE that was uncovered. So, the nakedness of "his father" was actually his father and not his mother.

 

 

 

Personally I dont believe that Canaan had s@x with his mother. I believe he only uncovered the nakedness of his father, but possibly of his mother....and yes thats written to be a sin also...

 

 

 

Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

 

 

This would be a literal uncovering to inspect or look intently at the naked body. This is what I believe Canaan did.

 

 

 

If canaan was actually a result of an S@xual act, then he

would have only just been conceived in the womb and no one would even

know if she had become pregnant.

 

Furthermore, Noah curses someone by name, someone who supposedly is

barely a few hours alive in the womb and wont be born until 9 months

later.

 

1. So how would Noah even know his wife was actually pregnant?

2. pregnant with a boy and not a girl?

3. and how in the world would Noah already know the name of this child? :lol:

 

 

Hindsight in writing it years after? Sure, but that ruins the text and the flow of the story. No, it was written properly and in chronological and logical order with the proper clues for bible students to be able to figure out what happened, and who was guity.

 

 

Canaan actually had been alive for many years and wasnt a product of

any incest, and was the youngest child of Ham's wife.

 

There is another issue to consider:

 

Genesis 10:6

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

 

Canaan is the last of Ham's four sons. In scripture, all children listed are from the same mother and if one is not then that child's mother would be named:

 

Gen 35:22-26

And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these [are] the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

 

This is found throughout scripture. Another example:

 

Genesis 4:19-22

And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

 

 

If Canaan truly was a product of incest with Noah's wife, then ALL of Ham's children MUST be also her children. Such a thing is not spoken of in scripture so it is safe to assume none of Ham's children are children of any woman except Ham's wife.

 

Even if the crime was incest, I do not believe any child came of it since that also is not written about in scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jay,

 

Thanks for your input on this, I believe your conclusion is plausible, but I doubt it is correct for the reasons given below:

 

Now, if Ham secretly had s@x with his own mom, he wouldnt go and tell his brothers about it right? "Hey guess what, I just had s@x with Mom!" I mean, either Ham is utterly retarded and SICK or we are blaming him for a S@xual crime he never committed.

9198[/snapback]

I disagree. Misery loves company, and it is quite common for people to brag to friends about their sins. In fact it’s common and well-documented in law enforcement that criminals often brag about their crimes to friends. Things never change under the sun, as this verse reminds us: “But these… utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls.” 2 Peter 2:12-14

 

Heres the key. When this says "his younger son" we have to figure out what Noah meant. The word "younger" really means the youngest here.

 

Genesis 42:32 We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.

 

Anytime there are more than two, the word means the youngest else there would be no way to tell which was meant especially if the speaker is the father as all his children would be "younger" than he is.

I think this particular point is possible, but why did Hebrew scholars translate the word to youngest in Genesis 42:32, and younger in Gen 9:24? Given this, it would seem Hebrew scholars would disagree that younger always equals youngest, as you claim (sine I'm not a Hebrew scholar I am not being dogmatic on this point).

 

You also said there would be no way to tell who was being referred to when “younger” is used. The Bible explicitly named who the younger one was - Ham!

 

what if Noah said "his younger son" and meant Hams youngest son? Or even his youngest grandson as the Hebrew makes no distinction between son and grandson.

This is not necessarily true. While you are correct that there isn’t a Hebrew word for grandson, it can be written something like “thy son’s son”. So why did Moses not use this method here for grandson? If your claim is correct it sure would have been the concise thing to do to prevent this disagreement.;) For example, “That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son” Deut 6:2 (also see Gen 11:31 and Judges 8:22).

 

Some think that Ham slept with his mother and she gave birth to Canaan and thats why Canaan was cursed but unless a woman can get pregnant and give birth in one night this couldnt be possible!

The text does not demand that the “curse” immediately follow the sin. It could easily have happened after Noah learned of the pregnancy just a few months later. If Canaan truly was the result of such an incestuous relationship, it would make sense that Canaan is “cursed” in the sense of having a grandmother for a mother, half-brother for a father, grandfather for an uncle, father for a cousin, etc.

 

why would we have been told twice that Ham was already the father of Canaan

It is indeed interesting that “Ham, the father of Canaan” is used several times in this passage! I think it makes as much (or more) sense that this relationship is illuminated because of the wicked connection between the two and to delineate it from Noah (who at that time some may have thought was the father since his wife bore Canaan).

 

Note again that the nakedness was SEEN by Ham, not that Ham UNCOVERED the nakedness. That's a huge difference that is almost always overlooked.

I do not believe you have made a case for these being separate, you are just speculating. :) It turns out scripture refutes your delineation:

 

"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

 

Personally I dont believe that Canaan had s@x with his mother. I believe he only uncovered the nakedness of his father, but possibly of his mother....and yes thats written to be a sin also...

 

Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

You are not giving the full context of this passage, since “uncovering nakedness” is defined both pre-passage and post passage:

 

Lev 20:11 The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness;

 

Lev 20:20-21: If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless.

 

Canaan is the last of Ham's four sons. In scripture, all children listed are from the same mother and if one is not then that child's mother would be named. … If Canaan truly was a product of incest with Noah's wife, then ALL of Ham's children MUST be also her children.

 

Please do not take offense, but this was not a valid argument at all and is a logical fallacy. How could you possibly know that the child's mother would always be named in scripture? Finding examples where the mother is named is not proof that this is a rigid rule. Aside from this logical fallacy, your case is weak even if we just do a search on the word ‘begot’, and consider all the genealogies that seldom mention the mother. We would have to assume all of those offspring are from the same mother, which would be an incredible stretch given the propensity for men to have multiple wives or “concubines”.

 

In summary, your position is no different than the traditional view, in that it doesn’t address the very reason vast numbers of believers and unbelievers alike find this passage bizarre and troubling – why such a harsh curse merely for seeing someone naked, even if gazing on them (which I admit is a sin if done lustfully)? We all have the law of the Lord written on our hearts, and our hearts rightly tell all of us that gazing on nakedness is not worthy of a harsh curse, while incest/adultery certainly would be. Just ask anyone, without mentioning the Bible, if it makes more sense for someone to be harshly cursed for gazing on a naked body, or for committing insest/adultery? Virtually everyone will tell you the later.

 

If Canaan is the product of Ham sleeping with his mother, this passage is no longer bizarre and troubling for believers and unbelievers alike. It is no longer inconsistent with the law on our hearts, nor with God’s holy attributes. Coupled with a Jewish figure of speech unlocked for us in Leviticus 20:11, it also matches scripture. Finally, as Pastor Enyart noted: “…readers of Genesis find a clear and reasonable origin for the conflict that lasted for centuries between the Jews and the Canaanites.”

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Misery loves company, and it is quite common for people to brag to friends about their sins. In fact it’s common and well-documented in law enforcement that criminals often brag about their crimes to friends.

And would you still agree that a criminal would go to his brothers and brag about just raping their mother or father? Criminals only brag about crimes to people who wouldn't have a personal interest in the victim.

 

I think this particular point is possible, but why did Hebrew scholars translate the word to youngest in Genesis 42:32, and younger in Gen 9:24? Given this, it would seem Hebrew scholars would disagree that younger always equals youngest, as you claim (sine I'm not a Hebrew scholar I am not being dogmatic on this point).

 

From what I gleaned speaking to scholars and students of Hebrew is that there is no difference between younger or youngest so its up to the translator to guess or go by context. Perhaps they didn't know for sure so used younger rather than youngest. All Noah's sons were younger than he was so that's a pretty safe translation.

 

 

You also said there would be no way to tell who was being referred to when “younger†is used. The Bible explicitly named who the younger one was - Ham!

No, it doesn't say Ham. It doesn't say anyone's name as who the "younger son" is, but the one named in the curse is Canaan so he is the most likely one.

 

 

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

 

 

QUOTE

what if Noah said "his younger son" and meant Hams youngest son? Or even his youngest grandson as the Hebrew makes no distinction between son and grandson.

 

 

This is not necessarily true. While you are correct that there isn’t a Hebrew word for grandson, it can be written something like “thy son’s sonâ€ÂÂ.

Except Noah wasn't speaking to anyone directly so that wording couldn't be used.

 

 

So why did Moses not use this method here for grandson? If your claim is correct it sure would have been the concise thing to do to prevent this disagreement. For example, “That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son†Deut 6:2 (also see Gen 11:31 and Judges 8:22).

 

Again, God is talking to someone here but in verse 9:24 it is the narrator speaking.

 

 

QUOTE

Some think that Ham slept with his mother and she gave birth to Canaan and thats why Canaan was cursed but unless a woman can get pregnant and give birth in one night this couldnt be possible!

 

 

The text does not demand that the “curse†immediately follow the sin. It could easily have happened after Noah learned of the pregnancy just a few months later. If Canaan truly was the result of such an incestuous relationship, it would make sense that Canaan is “cursed†in the sense of having a grandmother for a mother, half-brother for a father, grandfather for an uncle, father for a cousin, etc.

It's a great stretch where there is no reason to do so. If Ham were guilty of anything he would have been spoken to, cursed or something, anything yet not a thing at all is said concerning any guilt of any crime. He see's Noahs nakedness, he goes and tells his brothers and they cover him up and Noah wakes up and knows that his younger son (either Ham's or his own younger/youngest son or grandson) had committed a crime and he curses someone by name. I believe we assume Canaan is the one guilty and work backwards from that to know what happened.

 

 

 

QUOTE

Note again that the nakedness was SEEN by Ham, not that Ham UNCOVERED the nakedness. That's a huge difference that is almost always overlooked.

 

 

I do not believe you have made a case for these being separate, you are just speculating. It turns out scripture refutes your delineation:

 

"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 don't see how that refutes me. Noah's nakedness was uncovered, whatever that may be, but we are only told Ham saw the nakedness. That doesn't tell us who did the uncovering.

 

If I see someone getting raped and I go tell two people what I saw, that doesn't equal that I was the rapist but that is exactly what is being done to Ham.

 

 

Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

 

 

You are not giving the full context of this passage, since “uncovering nakedness†is defined both pre-passage and post passage:

 

Lev 20:11 The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness;

 

Lev 20:20-21: If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless.

I believe verse 17 is describing a sinful act that does not involve s@x. I know of nowhere where "seeing nakedness" means having s@x. I know "knowing" and "laying" with a woman is s@x.

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE

Canaan is the last of Ham's four sons. In scripture, all children listed are from the same mother and if one is not then that child's mother would be named. … If Canaan truly was a product of incest with Noah's wife, then ALL of Ham's children MUST be also her children.

 

 

 

Please do not take offense, but this was not a valid argument at all and is a logical fallacy. How could you possibly know that the child's mother would always be named in scripture? Finding examples where the mother is named is not proof that this is a rigid rule. Aside from this logical fallacy, your case is weak even if we just do a search on the word ‘begot’, and consider all the genealogies that seldom mention the mother. We would have to assume all of those offspring are from the same mother, which would be an incredible stretch given the propensity for men to have multiple wives or “concubinesâ€ÂÂ.

Find me an example that lists children of a man where they have different mothers but does not state it and I will consider that. In my experience when children are listed they all have the same mother and if they don't it is stated.

 

 

 

In summary, your position is no different than the traditional view, in that it doesn’t address the very reason vast numbers of believers and unbelievers alike find this passage bizarre and troubling – why such a harsh curse merely for seeing someone naked, even if gazing on them (which I admit is a sin if done lustfully)?

The curse is harsh no matter what crime was committed. An entire family of peoples for generations were cursed for one man's actions. It is whom the guilty party is that is important and in question. I see only evidence that Canaan was guilty and nothing that Ham was.

 

 

If Canaan is the product of Ham sleeping with his mother, this passage is no longer bizarre and troubling for believers and unbelievers alike. It is no longer inconsistent with the law on our hearts, nor with God’s holy attributes. Coupled with a Jewish figure of speech unlocked for us in Leviticus 20:11, it also matches scripture. Finally, as Pastor Enyart noted: “…readers of Genesis find a clear and reasonable origin for the conflict that lasted for centuries between the Jews and the Canaanites.â€ÂÂ

Your focus is on the wrong thing. It doesn't matter to me what the crime was. I believe it was seeing, but it could have been rape/incest. The issue is who did it.

 

 

"If Canaan slept with his mother, the passage of Noah cursing Canaan and not Ham is no longer bizarre and troubling for believers and unbelievers alike. "

 

That's how I would have worded it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And would you still agree that a criminal would go to his brothers and brag about just raping their mother or father? Criminals only brag about crimes to people who wouldn't have a personal interest in the victim.

9269[/snapback]

Yes, this really would not be surprising. Don’t forget the world they lived in before the flood! It was chalked full of all kinds of sin. The Bible (and secular history) is full of examples of such wickedness. Though the specific passage doesn’t indicate this, I would not be surprised if Ham didn’t try to get them to join in his sin. “…having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls.” 2 Peter 2:12-14 The end of Romans also comes to mind: “…knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” Rom 1:32

 

From what I gleaned speaking to scholars and students of Hebrew is that there is no difference between younger or youngest so its up to the translator to guess or go by context. Perhaps they didn't know for sure so used younger rather than youngest. All Noah's sons were younger than he was so that's a pretty safe translation.

I think you have just granted me the point. ;) That is, you now apparently agree younger does not necessarily equal youngest.

 

No, it doesn't say Ham. 

But it does say Ham: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.” Gen 9:22

 

I realize you are referring to your interpretation of the verse in 9:24, I just happen to disagree that all the sudden the context switches gears and Noah is referring to someone other than Ham. I think it’s a stretch, and it renders Lev 17:11 almost worthless. You have to admit you are reading something out of the text that isn’t plainly present. The interpretation that Ham is the subject is the plain interpretation.

 

This is not necessarily true. While you are correct that there isn’t a Hebrew word for grandson, it can be written something like “thy son’s son”.

Except Noah wasn't speaking to anyone directly so that wording couldn't be used.

It doesn’t matter if he is speaking to someone directly, it could have been worded “the youngest son’s son”.

 

"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 don't see how that refutes me. Noah's nakedness was uncovered, whatever that may be, but we are only told Ham saw the nakedness. That doesn't tell us who did the uncovering.

OK, I didn’t think I was very clear on this. You claimed there was a huge difference between UNCOVERING and SEEING, the Hab 2:15 verse argues against this.

 

I believe verse 17 is describing a sinful act that does not involve s@x.

Two problems with this: 1) If your interpretation is correct, why does God bother to explain the idiom that sleeping with someone is uncovering their spouse’s nakedness, both before and after this verse? 2) In verse 17 the action verb “take” is used, how do you explain this? How can you “take” someone to see them naked? I believe the context is clear, with support from Hab 2:15, that uncovering and seeing a nakedness are one and the same thing – sleeping with the person and/or the person’s spouse. Remember when we marry we become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:5).

 

Find me an example that lists children of a man where they have different mothers but does not state it and I will consider that.

I think you missed my point why your claim is a logical fallacy. Let me try this:

 

Gen 10:15-18 Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth; the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite; the Hivite, the Arkite, and the Sinite; the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.

 

Gen 10:26-29 Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan .

 

No indication is given that any of these children had a different mother. However, it doesn’t mean they didn’t. Given the nature of Canaan, I’d be surprised if all his children were from the same wife, but like your example I cannot prove this. However, if I said it proves they had only one mother, this would be no different than your fallacy. So the fallacy is this - because you found a few passages where the mother is listed, you claim this is the hard rule and not the exception, with really no basis to make this claim. It’s called a hasty generalization.

 

Your focus is on the wrong thing. It doesn't matter to me what the crime was. I believe it was seeing, but it could have been rape/incest. The issue is who did it.

I’m focusing on both your claims. It should matter to you what the crime is, because if it was merely seeing, this would seem to contradict God’s Holy Justice, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. That is, the curse would not match the crime in the eyes of believers and unbelievers alike, so the crime is important, very important.

 

I have also focused on who did the crime. Again, I think your scenario is plausible (that Canaan committed the incest), I just think Ham as the culprit fits better with the scripture, since the scripture explicitly calls out Ham as the one who did the “uncovering” of the nakedness that Lev 17:11 clearly defines as sleeping with one’s wife. If you reject Ham as the culprit, how do you explain Lev 17:11? Is this idiom sometimes referring to actual uncovering, and other times referring to s@x?

 

This is a good discussion Jay, thanks.

 

Fred

PS. Note that the forum software limits each post to 10 quote boxes, that is why your earlier post did not format correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this really would not be surprising. Don’t forget the world they lived in before the flood! It was chalked full of all kinds of sin.

Yeah well I very much doubt that is the case with Ham.

 

 

The Bible (and secular history) is full of examples of such wickedness. Though the specific passage doesn’t indicate this, I would not be surprised if Ham didn’t try to get them to join in his sin. “…having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls.†2 Peter 2:12-14 The end of Romans also comes to mind: “…knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.†Rom 1:32

If this were true Ham would be clearly shown described in various guilty acts throughout his life but scripture is silent regarding this.

 

 

QUOTE

From what I gleaned speaking to scholars and students of Hebrew is that there is no difference between younger or youngest so its up to the translator to guess or go by context. Perhaps they didn't know for sure so used younger rather than youngest. All Noah's sons were younger than he was so that's a pretty safe translation.

 

 

I think you have just granted me the point. That is, you now apparently agree younger does not necessarily equal youngest.

My only intent is to prove that younger can be translated as youngest as well as son as grandson. In the case of a man speaking of his "younger son" it doesn't make much sense to say younger because all of a man's sons are younger than he is so in this case the meaning of "youngest" would be more appropriate. Therefore it most likely is "youngest".

 

 

 

 

QUOTE

No, it doesn't say Ham.

 

 

But it does say Ham: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.†Gen 9:22

 

I realize you are referring to your interpretation of the verse in 9:24, I just happen to disagree that all the sudden the context switches gears and Noah is referring to someone other than Ham.

No interpretation is needed. Ham is identified as being the one who saw Noah's nakedness and it is Canaan which is cursed as being the one who had done something against Noah that Noah found out about. Nothing at all is said about the sin known as "uncovering nakedness" so that being a part of this incident is pure speculation.

 

Now if it read "And Ham, the father of Canaan, UNCOVERED the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside." Then I'd agree fully that Ham was the guilty party, and guilty of rape/incest and that Canaan was not involved directly but that simply isn't what the Word says.

 

A court of law would convict Canaan not Ham and they would be just in it.

 

 

 

I think it’s a stretch, and it renders Lev 17:11 almost worthless. You have to admit you are reading something out of the text that isn’t plainly present. The interpretation that Ham is the subject is the plain interpretation.

 

Ham isn't the subject in verse 24, Canaan is.

 

 

OK, I didn’t think I was very clear on this. You claimed there was a huge difference between UNCOVERING and SEEING, the Hab 2:15 verse argues against this.

15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

 

 

There is a huge difference between looking at someone naked and raping them. If you can prove that seeing someone's nakedness and uncovering their nakedness (rape/s@x/incest) is the same exact thing then I'll concede but so far seeing and uncovering are two different things.

 

 

 

 

 

QUOTE

I believe verse 17 is describing a sinful act that does not involve s@x.

 

 

Two problems with this: 1) If your interpretation is correct, why does God bother to explain the idiom that sleeping with someone is uncovering their spouse’s nakedness, both before and after this verse?

To explain it. Being sandwiched between the two does not equal that the seeing is the same act.

 

 

 

2) In verse 17 the action verb “take†is used, how do you explain this?

There is nothing to explain.

 

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

 

The same verb is used here. Are you trying to imply the verb has sinister implications?

 

 

 

How can you “take†someone to see them naked?

Uh, how about to a private room? Or how about using force against their will?

 

 

 

I think you missed my point why your claim is a logical fallacy. Let me try this:

 

Gen 10:15-18 Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth; the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite; the Hivite, the Arkite, and the Sinite; the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.

 

Gen 10:26-29 Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan .

 

No indication is given that any of these children had a different mother. However, it doesn’t mean they didn’t. Given the nature of Canaan, I’d be surprised if all his children were from the same wife, but like your example I cannot prove this.

Then my claim stands until it is disproven. :)

 

 

I’m focusing on both your claims. It should matter to you what the crime is, because if it was merely seeing, this would seem to contradict God’s Holy Justice, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. That is, the curse would not match the crime in the eyes of believers and unbelievers alike, so the crime is important, very important.

Even rape does not deserve the cursing of an entire lineage of people. I believe I said that already. The curse does not match the crime no matter what the crime is.

 

 

 

I have also focused on who did the crime. Again, I think your scenario is plausible (that Canaan committed the incest), I just think Ham as the culprit fits better with the scripture, since the scripture explicitly calls out Ham as the one who did the “uncovering†of the nakedness that Lev 17:11 clearly defines as sleeping with one’s wife.

You cannot say that scripture names Ham as being the one who uncovered Noah...It does not say that.

 

 

 

If you reject Ham as the culprit, how do you explain Lev 17:11? Is this idiom sometimes referring to actual uncovering, and other times referring to s@x?

 

It only is about seeing someone's nakedness literally. It is sinful to look at someone's nakedness and allow them to see yours unless you are married.

 

 

 

This is a good discussion Jay, thanks.

Thanks. I appreciate your mature participation and I consider everything you say.

 

 

Fred

PS. Note that the forum software limits each post to 10 quote boxes, that is why your earlier post did not format correctly.

Can you change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 disprovenâ€ÂÂ. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*rolls eyes*

9340[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

9358[/snapback]

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.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

9422[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms