Noah's nakedness

[USCGrad90]

But it does not say Canaan did anything but Ham saw His father nakedness, so why was Canaan cursed?

The links below provides some possible explanations of why Canaan was cursed instead of Ham. Essentially, since Ham was already blessed by God, Noah cursed Cannan instead of Ham.
Bear in mind that during the time in question that what we now consider to be minor issues were taken much more seriously. A child striking the father was considered a capital offense, subject to death. The act of looking upon another man's genitals was considered a grievious offense, and was seen as an attempt to usurp the authority and control of the man in question.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/the-curse-of-canaan/
http://sites.sas.upenn.edu/dmg2/files/what_did_ham_do_11_sep_05_additions.pdf

 

[Bluelion]

The links below provides some possible explanations of why Canaan was cursed instead of Ham. Essentially, since Ham was already blessed by God, Noah cursed Cannan instead of Ham.
Bear in mind that during the time in question that what we now consider to be minor issues were taken much more seriously. A child striking the father was considered a capital offense, subject to death. The act of looking upon another man's genitals was considered a grievious offense, and was seen as an attempt to usurp the authority and control of the man in question.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/the-curse-of-canaan/
http://sites.sas.upenn.edu/dmg2/files/what_did_ham_do_11_sep_05_additions.pdf

what time are you speak of? do your forget Noah lived through the flood? The most gross account of sin through out history that will not be equal again until Jesus return. I don't think Noah would flip because his son saw him naked, not after what he lived through.

 

[classicalhero]

But it does not say Canaan did anything but Ham saw His father nakedness, so why was Canaan cursed?

The quote answered your question.

 

[Tina W]

Sounds like some "Theologian" trying to build a VAST THEORY from half-vast information. All GOd's CHilluns gots "theories".

The Biblical account seems simple and clear. Noah got WASTED, and was lying exposed in his tent. (Gen 9:21)

HAM happened on the scene first. and found the Disgrace of his father to be the funniest thing he'd ever seen, and wanted to denigrate the stupid old fool, and have his brothers join in the fun.

Shem, and Japheth, on the other hand HAD RESPECT for their father, and only wished to COVER His shame, and protect his reputation. And so they did.

The question WE have to ask ourselves is which son would WE be like in similar circumstances? Do we take pleasure in Tearing Down and exposing the disgrace of others, or are we more interested in protecting their dignity.

I think we ALL know what side our "media" desires to take -

That is a good point.

 

[Bluelion]

The quote answered your question.

but does saw his nakedness mean with his eyes or that he knew his own mother and saw his fathers nakedness that way?

 

[USCGrad90]

what time are you speak of? do your forget Noah lived through the flood? The most gross account of sin through out history that will not be equal again until Jesus return. I don't think Noah would flip because his son saw him naked, not after what he lived through.

The time I'm referring to is one where customs of respect for authority and position were different than they are today. Signs of disrespect were a challenge to leadership for control of tribes and groups of people. I am not saying Noah just flipped out just because Ham saw him naked. I'm saying that Ham went into Noah's tent, saw him in his drunken, naked state and then proceeded to go outside and tell Shem and Japeth about it - showing disrepect for his Father. Shem and Japeth went to extremes to cover their father and not see his nakedness
There could have been other things that happened. Ham may have done something to Noah or had relations with Noah's wife as some may suggest. Because it's not specifically spelled out, it leaves some to wonder what else could have happened.
In his choice of words, Moses reports the incident with a minimum of details. Modern society would have details of exactly what went on inside the tent, who told Noah what happened, and would have conveyed every minute detail - perpetuating the sin of Ham. Moses instead simply brings us outside the tent to focus on the contrast between the actions of Ham versus Shem and Japeth.
For me - I'm content to accept that the issue is simply about Ham's disrespect for his father. There may be more, but for me, the simplest explanation is good enough.
https://bible.org/seriespage/10-nakedness-noah-and-cursing-canaan-genesis-918-1032

 

[4x4toy]

I know it's a stretch, but I'm just going to take the text at face value. Noah was naked.

 

[4x4toy]

nm

 

[SaintJoeNow]

So i am trying to figure this out maybe i could get some input see if we can't figure it out.
Gen 9 NLT
20 After the flood, Noah began to cultivate the ground, and he planted a vineyard. 21 One day he drank some wine he had made, and he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and went outside and told his brothers. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a robe, held it over their shoulders, and backed into the tent to cover their father. As they did this, they looked the other way so they would not see him naked.

24 When Noah woke up from his stupor, he learned what Ham, his youngest son, had done. 25 Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham:

“May Canaan be cursed!
May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives.”
26 Then Noah said,

“May the Lord, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and may Canaan be his servant!
27 May God expand the territory of Japheth!
May Japheth share the prosperity of Shem,
and may Canaan be his servant.”
28 Noah lived another 350 years after the great flood. 29 He lived 950 years, and then he died.


In this journal, Frederick W. Bassett, “Noah's Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan, a Case of Incest?,” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 2 (April 1971).

The author suggest that the nakedness of Noah was referring to Noah's son sleeping with his mother.The part "saw that his father was naked" was common used in the bible to say uncovered His fathers nakedness meaning sleeping with his mother. To uncover your brothers nakedness would mean you sleep with your brother wife while alive. The author says that Ham slept with his mother and Canaan was the offspring of such a union and why Canaan was cursed, and why such a harsh curse. I must say that explains alot but also leaves some question. It says his other sons took a robe and walked backwards to cover there fathers nakedness up. This could be a metaphor for Ham tried to get the other brother to engage there mother as well but the brothers turned away and did not sin as ham had done.

So what are your thoughts what was the nakedness of Noah?

Interesting take on Noah's nakeness, could be right I guess...but why would the details not me mentioned when the details of so many other events involving perversion were clearly spelled out? Your explanation does offer a way to fill in a lot of blanks in the story. Incest brings consequences like a curse regardless, and maybe this story from Noah does refer to such events.

Your take does offer an explanation as to why the curse on Canaan was so harsh.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Sounds like some "Theologian" trying to build a VAST THEORY from half-vast information. All GOd's CHilluns gots "theories".

The Biblical account seems simple and clear. Noah got WASTED, and was lying exposed in his tent. (Gen 9:21)

HAM happened on the scene first. and found the Disgrace of his father to be the funniest thing he'd ever seen, and wanted to denigrate the stupid old fool, and have his brothers join in the fun.

Shem, and Japheth, on the other hand HAD RESPECT for their father, and only wished to COVER His shame, and protect his reputation. And so they did.

The question WE have to ask ourselves is which son would WE be like in similar circumstances? Do we take pleasure in Tearing Down and exposing the disgrace of others, or are we more interested in protecting their dignity.

I think we ALL know what side our "media" desires to take -

I think I have to agree with this commentary, though the vast comment was a bit on the crude side. Good commentary anyways.