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)
The skeptic interpreted this as follows:



While this interpretation more than anything else reveals the bias of the skeptic , it is a passage of scripture that does seem strange. But there is a piece to this puzzle that unlocks the verses and then it becomes crystal clear why Ham was cursed. Consider this verse from Leviticus:

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

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”.

In Christ,
Fred Williams

I heard a sermon preached on this once. And the preacher refered to it as Ham mocking Noah by telling his brothers and not doing the respectful thing, which his brothers did. For Noah to become the laughing stock of the people God had placed him over, he would have lost his leadership role because he would have lost their respect. And the reason the world was flooded would have started all over again.

For as long as the people had respect for Noah, they would have respect for the God he worshipped. If they would have lost that respect, then Noah being the set leader by God over them, their respect for God would have vanished.

Noah knew this. If the word got out they he did this thing, which Ham was ready to tell everyone about.... Also, Ham could have taken his place of authority by doing this. And since Ham had no respect for his father, he would have no respect for God either. And would have lead the people God saved from the flood down the wrong path.

It works like much of how things work today. If you have someone in a respected position for God. And he does something like this in a moment of weakness. Would it be better to have him judged by telling everyone? Or let God deal with it, not the people? For only God can be a just judge. And should a person lose their ability to lead because of one mistake? God forgives. Man is not so willing to do the same.

Surprise! I have a few comments.



I think that preacher had it right. There is quite a body of ancient Jewish commentary on this passage, and that is the thrust of it. Also, Ham did something to Noah, although the Scripture doesn't say what (Genesis 9:24).



Well, Jesus has this to say in Matthew 18:15-17, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. "

That applies to the leaders of the church more, if anything, than to the laiety. It isn't a matter of judging in the judicial sense. It is a matter of judging right and wrong and keeping the Word in highest respect.

A man who is found guilty of gross sin can, of course, be restored to fellowship upon repentance. A fallen leader can be restored as well, but only to fellowship, not to leadership because the requirements for leaders are specifically spelled out, and among them is "blameless". {1 Timothy 3:2, 10 : Titus 1, 5-7, et al}

Seems to me that Ham is cursed for what he did not do, i.e cover up his father, instead he just tells his brothers about the situation and they fix the problem. Cursed for his indifference and/or laziness?

Again, let's look at a well-established Hebrew figure of speech:

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Leviticus 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)

Also

‘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:

In you men uncover their fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity. (Ezek 22:10)

I think a strong and reasonable case can be made from this Hebrew figure of speech, 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.”

God Judges us by what is in our hearts, not so much by actions. So because God knew what was in Ham's heart when he did this (hate, desrespect, trying to take Noah's postion etc...), God punished him accordenly. If God relayed why, and how He knew and did things. The bible would be so huge, no one would read it. As christians. we have to have faith that God knew things about Ham we did not. And was why he got the punishment he did.

Yes. But what is a figure of speech in one place can be a simple statement of fact in another.




It may be that Ham slept with his fathers wife (but incest was not yet banned by God, and He does not punish where there is no crime {Romans 5:13}). It may also be that he performed some sodomitic act on Noah (same problem). I doubt that it was a simple case of seeing the old man naked. Admin3 cited a preacher who said that Ham was cursed because he would have brought the same vile things back that the flood washed away, and that is a good possibility. What, exactly, he did to provoke the curse is interesting guess work.

True, but if this figure of speech was used somewhere where the context clearly wasn’t sexual sin, I would think the connection I’m proposing would be much more debatable. I did another word-search, and everywhere this expression is used the context is clearly a sexual sin, except for two places: 1) the account we are talking about, Genesis 9, and 2) Habakkuk 2:15. Both of these accounts make much more sense if a sexual sin is involved, which seems compelling to me that the figure of speech also applies in these passages. As you said, it seems very unlikely that this was just a simple case of seeing Noah naked.



While it is true incest was not banned yet (and in fact was required in the first several generations to fulfill God’s request to be fruitful and multiply!), adultery very likely was banned, and was the sin Ham committed (See Gen 39 for an example where adultery was known by Joseph to be a sin, before the Levitical Law was given). We also know from Romans 2 that the law was written on their hearts – what specifically were these “laws” would be debatable, but in the least one would think it includes adultery and honoring parents.



I think in this case it’s more than guess work, but would also agree it is something I can’t be dogmatic about. But it is much more supportable than many speculations we like to make, such as guessing when Satan’s fall occurred (an interesting topic in itself).

Fred

As a Jew, I have to agree with Fred on this one. It is almost certain Ham slept with his mother or Noah himself to"uncover his father's nakedness". He then compounded the whole thing by his attitude afterward.
It might even be argued this was the 1st sin since the flood and such a major one - G-d could not have been pleased.

note - edited to get quote box right.

Fred, I suspect that your exegesis is sound. But like you, I can't be dogmatic about it. Upon reflection, other possibilities present themselves.

That’s fascinating, i.e. that “uncovering nakedness = sleeping around”, it can certainly help to understand a text in a wholly different context.
But what then of Ham’s brothers? They covered Noah up! Obviously they can’t undo what Ham has done, so what action are they performing to undo Hams transgression, or ease Noah’s anger?

When Ham entered the tent, which in itself may have been a violation if he did not receive an answer to his clap (not sure of this since it is right after the flood), if he saw his father naked, he should have averted his eyes and did as Shem and Japeth and covered him.

Aside:
Here is a real mystery. The english translation of Shem is "name". Why would Noah name his son name?
I can see the Abbott & Costello routine now:
"What is your name"?
"Name".
"Right - what is it?"
"Name"!
"Yes - I want to know"!
"It is Name you bloody..."

Well, you get it.

"Shem" can also mean "renown".

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

FW: 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”.

Hi Fred:

I never matched the above verse with the act of Ham. It certainly gives strong support that Ham's sin is as the verse says.

But the fact that Japheth and Shem covered Noah and did not look seems to disprove the evidence above ?

Admin3 in post #2 makes what I feel is the best grave sin of Ham: disrespect of God's anointed.

We know Elisha cursed 42 children in the heat of an insult towards Him and God honored it.

I have always been taught that we must first assume the Bible/God means what He says.

IOW, Ham and his descendants were cursed for exactly what the text says: Gossipping about Noah.

We know there is a ton of Bible against gossipping, whiSSSpering, etc.etc.

goSSipping/whiSSpering/ = pSSt = SSerpent = SSatan.

RM

Could you provide the verse where it says "gossiping" please.
Thanks very much.

Genesis 9:22 says Ham told Shem and Japheth = gossip.

He should of kept it a secret and did what his brothers ended up doing.

BTW, where in the Bible do we find God coming down on Noah for getting drunk and ending up naked ?

God got mad at the gossip.

The point I believe is that while getting drunk and naked is obviously a sin it didn't even warrant a rebuke by God. It was the gossip that made Him angry.

Proverbs 6:16-19

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Notice the very last thing that God hates: "sowing discord among brethern." = gossip.

I can't find getting drunk and naked on the list but they are sins as can be deduced from many other places in Scripture.


RM

Hi Ray - Welcome by the way,
I do not equate Proverbs with the weight I do the rest of the OT. They are...well, proverbs.
Secondly, I agree gossip is bad, but not the reason for the curse on Ham. The uncovering refers to a specific act - not gossip.
We, of course, do not know for sure so I am not going into a debate over this. :>)



Drinking of the vine is not forbidden or a sin. Getting drunk and naked in the privacy of your own tent is definitely not a sin.

Your tag says you are a Christian. I have recently been reading the Gospels. Did not your Jesus perform a miracle where the best wine was served? And this after all of the other had already been drunk. Seems Jesus had nothing against a little wine and even occasional tipsiness?

Shalom Shabot

The Scripture gives thanks to God for "the wine that gladdens men's hearts". What is most definitely forbidden is drunkeness as a lifestyle. The example mentioned, the wedding feast at Cana is an excellent example. Who imagines that after days of feasting no one was loaded? Even so, Jesus produced between 120 and 150 gallons of heavenly quality wine so the party could continue. So, an ocassional party is one thing, but habitual drunkenness another.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Drunkness should not be a lifestyle or even somethinf that happens too often. Special occasions only.
My .02

Note:
edited for spelling mistake

Going back to my childhood I recall being told that drinking wine from an urban environment was safer than the water in those days, (killed the bacteria). In addition the ‘drinking’ wine (as opposed to the ‘party’ wine) was not particularly strong, so there would not be any social stigma with consuming what by today’s standards would be a high wine diet. Not sure if this is an urban legend or not, anyone have any facts about the above?

This is why I don't believe this is what was meant, and I'm glad you pointed that out. Your very observent. For I missed that. But even what you said open my eyes to more truth in that area.

The Bible talks about what are apparently different kinds of intoxicating drink: "wine" and "strong drink". The two terms often appear together so it is reasonable that they are two different things. Further evidence that they are different things is provided by Aben Ezra who says that 'strong drink' is made either of a kind of wheat, or of honey or dates.

An example of both terms appearing together: Proverbs 31:6, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."

Now regarding wine, Numbers 28:7 specifies that the wine used for the drink offering be "the strong wine". That makes it kind of obvious that there was also a 'weak' wine. Some people claim that the freshly trodden grape juice, before it was fermented, was the common 'wine', but that argument is most often advanced by those who are trying to make out that Jesus was a teetotaler (which He wasn't). Most likely the common table wine was strong wine that had been diluted with water. That practice was widespread and is well documented in ancient literature.

Thanks.

It sort of made sense to me because Noah then cursed Ham with an ‘appropriate’ curse for his laziness or indifference, i.e. making the lazy a slave or hanger-on. For any of you in a business environment you may recall that managers often request that problem not be brought to their attention without an accompanying solution. A laundry list of the companies woes is usually not appreciated (generalising of course).




Curses wrings hands and gnashes teeth, foiled again.


The Deacon Thanks for the additional references to wine strengths.

It appears everyone here at least agrees that it is a valid figure of speech, that the Bible explicitly spells out in plain language (Lev 18, 20), that to uncover a person’s nakedness is to sleep with that person’s wife. In fact it is a figure of speech used fairly frequently in the Bible. The question is, why is this figure of speech apparently only questioned in Gen 9? Doesn’t it make sense that Japheth and Shem covering Noah’s nakedness is an extension of this respectful manner of explaining what happened? Japheth and Shem covered their mother who was still left naked soon after Ham bragged about his wickedness (we know how wicked people love to brag of their wickedness - perhaps Ham invited his brother’s to do the same; the last verse of Romans 1 comes to mind). The brothers were instead appalled, and put a blanket over their mother, which we know from the inverse of the figure of speech they were also covering Noah’s nakedness. This idea of covering one spouse equating to covering the other spouse is also supported by the fact that Noah and his wife are one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

I still think a strong case can be made from the text that Ham violated his mother, and why he was cursed. Let's make a bet. Whoever is right gets first dibs on going to Hillary Clinton's trial on judgement day (we know that is going to be a tough ticket to come by because it will be sold out ).

Fred

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?

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

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

A Plea for the Innocence of Ham

Fred Williams said:



chance wrote:



Deacon wrote:



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....

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.

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.



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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 sex with his own mom, he wouldnt go and tell his brothers about it right? "Hey guess what, I just had sex with Mom!" I mean, either Ham is utterly retarded and SICK or we are blaming him for a sexual 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 sex 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 sexual 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?


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.

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:



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



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!



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).



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 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).



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



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.



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

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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).[/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.


[QUOTE]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![/QUOTE]

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]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 son”. [/QUOTE]

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


[QUOTE]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). [/QUOTE]


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


[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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]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[/QUOTE]

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.


[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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






[QUOTE]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 “concubines”. [/QUOTE]

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.



[QUOTE]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)? [/QUOTE]

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.


[QUOTE]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.”[/QUOTE]

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.

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



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



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.



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



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.



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).



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.



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 sex?

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.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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


[QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

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


[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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]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.[/QUOTE]

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.



[QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE]


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


[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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/sex/incest) is the same exact thing then I'll concede but so far seeing and uncovering are two different things.





[QUOTE]QUOTE
I believe verse 17 is describing a sinful act that does not involve sex.


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?[/QUOTE]

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



[QUOTE] 2) In verse 17 the action verb “take” is used, how do you explain this?[/QUOTE]

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?



[QUOTE]How can you “take” someone to see them naked?[/QUOTE]

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



[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

Then my claim stands until it is disproven.


[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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.



[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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



[QUOTE] 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 sex?[/QUOTE]


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.



[QUOTE]This is a good discussion Jay, thanks.[/QUOTE]

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


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

Can you change that?

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.



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

*rolls eyes*





I see.




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.




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.

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

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.





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

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).



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



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

[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]



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

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.

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

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...

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



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’ ). 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 sexual 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 sexual 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