So What Really Happened in Noah's Tent After the Flood?

[Bible Highlighter]

Yeah, I could see that we were crossing wires, because you seemed to be saying what I thought and was saying. Once you understand the idiom, and realize that it's Cainan who is cursed, and realize (as you pointed out) that Noah had no more children, then it's obvious what happened.

The only asterisk I put on the theory (and I do happen to believe it is as we have accounted it), is the strange description of Japheth and Shem walking backwards to cover their father's nakedness. so they wouldn't see it.

Now that is really strange. It seems to apply to his actual nakedness, but there's nothing particularly shameful about seeing your sleeping father naked, or mother for that matter. Nor is there any commandment suggesting that it is.

But if it has to do with the Hebrew idiom, and pertain's to their mother's infidelity, then the walking backwards bit is nonsensical.

My sense is that we're dealing with idioms so old and so obscure that we're not going to make complete sense of it. Indeed, the idiom may have changed, with the outrage by Ham being the older story, using the "nakedness' to mean the sexual idiom, while a later redactor may have added the gloss about the other boys, to elevate them and denigrate Ham. And in the time of the later redactor, the older idiom may no longer have been use, so naked meant naked.

In any case, it's an interesting case where good exegesis makes something that's otherwise just sort of strange come to life and make sense.

The sheet (cloth) is a covering of protection so as not to see the temptation of the flesh:

"Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh." (Romans 13:14) (NIV).

(a) Remember (Go back) and receive what you heard and repent.
(b) Defile not your garments.

Rev 3:3 "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."
Rev 3:4 "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments."
(Revelation 3:3-4).

Going back:
(Back to the Lord):
And put on His bandages (Like a Sheet or Garment):

“Come, let’s go back to the Lord. He hurt us, but he will heal us. He wounded us, but he will put bandages on us." (Hosea 6:1) (ERV).

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
(John 5:39).

Jesus is our cloth or sheet of righteousness.
For if sin hits our family or our lives, we are to walk back to the Lord Jesus and repent to Him.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh, to me a brief take away is actually very simple: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

I was wondering if you had a conclusion for the audience that is that succinct?

#1. Be on guard to protect your believing family from the tactics of the devil.
For the devil was seeking to destroy the family of Noah by having Ham taking advantage of his own mother. Before, the devil tried to destroy the first family with murder (Cain and Abel). The second time, he used sexual immorality and alcohol to take down the second family of the new world (after the Ark rested upon dry ground).

#2. Jesus will return and destroy Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots who was drunk with the blood of the saints. Have hope in Christ's return and be watchful and ready for His return. Do not be drunk with wine but be filled with the Holy Ghost. Love not the world. Love Jesus and obey Him and His good ways (i.e. be faithful). Noah got drunk and his wife was taken advantage of so as to bring about an extremely evil group of people (that are destroyed by the Lord). He was not watchful. He was not looking. He was not ready. So be ready. Be watchful; And follow Jesus (and do not follow Mystery Babylon or the world system).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe Gen 1 is a specific introduction of God and His works.
I believe Gen 2 is giving more information to mankind, for mankind's benefit, that is specific to mankind and his provisions.

Of course! That is how most Christians read it (including myself).
But there are some who read it too literally and they understand it the wrong way.
This is where wooden literalism with God's Word can be a problem.
So when we see Canaan's name mentioned ahead of time in Genesis 9, it does not mean it is correct to say he is already living (at that point) anymore than it is correct to say that there is a man who lived and existed before Adam when reading Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (in a wooden literal way).

For there is no explanation that Genesis 2 is a detailed retelling of the events at the end of Genesis 1. However, we simply know that this is the case based on the available evidence. It is the most logical deduction.


...

 

[Vicomte13]

It does mean Ham was established as Canaan's father before Ham saw Noah's nakedness.

No it doesn't. It doesn't establish a timeline.

Did Jesus turn over the tables of the moneychanging merchants in the Jerusalem Temple at the beginning of his ministry, at the end of his ministry during the last week, or twice?

 

[SBC]

Of course! That is how most Christians read it (including myself).
But there are some who read it too literally and they understand it the wrong way.
This is where wooden literalism with God's Word can be a problem.
So when we see Canaan's name mentioned ahead of time in Genesis 9, it does not mean it is correct to say he is already living (at that point) anymore than it is correct to say that there is a man who lived and existed before Adam when reading Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (in a wooden literal way).

For there is no explanation that Genesis 2 is a detailed retelling of the events at the end of Genesis 1. However, we simply know that this is the case based on the available evidence.
It is the most logical deduction.


...

Reading of scripture is easily accomplished by simply reading the words presented.
The problem is not trusting what the words literally say;

The problem is not discovering how to come to the understanding of the words literally presented.

I will agree, many, as yourself lean on logical conclusions.

I will further say, logical conclusions are developed in a mans carnal mind.

And because there are millions of carnal minds each concluding their own logical conclusions, we can have millions of men deciding what is the correct conclusion to anything presented in scripture.

Scripture teaches God has Himself has provided a WAY for mankind to receive Gods Understanding, which lands us on the correct understanding, according to God Himself.

It should be obvious, I do not agree with your logical conclusion.
It should be obvious, to yourself, you have added things not presented in scripture, in an attempt to make your conclusion plausible.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[the old scribe]

A little perspective from recent history – about males seeing males naked.

Moderns live in houses with doors, indoor toilets with doors, and public restrooms with stalls. Today, privacy while nude is the norm for males although covering ones body in public does not seem to be so much in fashion for females.

Up through the 1950’s swimming at the YMChristianA males entered the pool naked.
Of course, swimming was segregated.
Before indoor toilets many out houses were two holers.
Male athletes and exercise facilities have a single common shower for males.
Boys taking an impromptu dip in the river was always nude.
Seining for bait before a fishing trip was often accomplished in the nude.

Back before the modern man, men and boys were not vain or self conscious about their bodies. They lived in a world where privacy was seldom available or necessay.
Christian men acted like Christian men with or with out clothing.

I suspect such attitudes were the same in the days of Noah.
Only the perverse made something of males seeing males nude as Romans 1 informs several times that the Lord gave them up to their own perversions because of their sins.

 

[SBC]

No it doesn't. It doesn't establish a timeline.

What it establishes is; I know the son of Ham is Caanan, before I know, Ham entered his fathers tent. And that information is relevant and precludes a fantasy that is being presented.

Did Jesus turn over the tables of the moneychanging merchants in the Jerusalem Temple at the beginning of his ministry, at the end of his ministry during the last week, or twice?

Is that knowledge relevant to comprehend what was occurring in the Temple, acceptable by the onlooking Pharisees and objected by Jesus?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Vicomte13]

It does mean Ham was established as Canaan's father before Ham saw Noah's nakedness.




What drama? Noah had a wife and three sons. Drama?

God Bless,
SBC

Noah got drunk, his son came in and had sex with his wife, who conceived and bore a child by their son, and the son went and told his brothers about it. So yes, drama. Lots and lots of drama.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Reading of scripture is easily accomplished by simply reading the words presented.
The problem is not trusting what the words literally say;

The problem is not discovering how to come to the understanding of the words literally presented.

I will agree, many, as yourself lean on logical conclusions.

I will further say, logical conclusions are developed in a mans carnal mind.

And because there are millions of carnal minds each concluding their own logical conclusions, we can have millions of men deciding what is the correct conclusion to anything presented in scripture.

Scripture teaches God has Himself has provided a WAY for mankind to receive Gods Understanding, which lands us on the correct understanding, according to God Himself.

It should be obvious, I do not agree with your logical conclusion.
It should be obvious, to yourself, you have added things not presented in scripture, in an attempt to make your conclusion plausible.

God Bless,
SBC

I am not against reading the Bible literally. But if you were to read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with wooden literalism, you would come away with the false belief that there was a man and woman who lived before Adam and Eve. Yet, you believe Noah and Ham's Story in Genesis 9 should be read with wooden literalism (while ignoring the Bible's use of idioms or metaphors). In other words, you are not consistent in your interpretation of literal and figurative words presented in Scripture.

What is your major motivation for believing as you do on the story of Noah and Ham? Is it the view of your church?
Are you afraid to believe something different than what your church says? I am just trying to understand.

Are there any phrases or words you regard as metaphors or figures of speech in the Bible? What determines your view of knowing that they metaphorical? Just a gut feeling? Or do you look at the context and compare Scripture with Scripture?

How do you interpret Revelation?



...

 

[SBC]

Noah got drunk, his son came in and had sex with his wife, who conceived and bore a child by their son, and the son went and told his brothers about it. So yes, drama. Lots and lots of drama.

Certainly you can believe whatever you desire to believe. I simply am not in agreement with you.

Nor does scripture itself present any such knowledge that Ham had a sexual relation with his fathers wife, or that by such supposed relationship was an offspring produced.

Scripture as presented is clear, without adding mindful imaginations.

And it would be just as astounding to me to hear tales today, of a son entering a father's bedroom and seeing his naked father, then telling his brothers; and then news reports claiming the son had sexual relations with his father's wife (while the father was lying in the same bed drunk!), and impregnated the father's wife, and an offspring was produced, called by a name, of the sons, son, already known prior to the supposed incident!) ie fake news.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Certainly you can believe whatever you desire to believe. I simply am not in agreement with you.

Nor does scripture itself present any such knowledge that Ham had a sexual relation with his fathers wife, or that by such supposed relationship was an offspring produced.

Scripture as presented is clear, without adding mindful imaginations.

And it would be just as astounding to me to hear tales today, of a son entering a father's bedroom and seeing his naked father, then telling his brothers; and then news reports claiming the son had sexual relations with his father's wife (while the father was lying in the same bed drunk!), and impregnated the father's wife, and an offspring was produced, called by a name, of the sons, son, already known prior to the supposed incident!) ie fake news.

God Bless,
SBC

Not at all! Scripture does agree with him. Again, if you believe the Bible's use of metaphors or slang, then Scripture does indeed present knowledge of Ham sleeping with his father's wife (i.e. his father's nakedness). Again, please carefully re-read Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 18:7. For it explains the slang or idiom used.

It makes sense out the story as to why Noah curses Canaan and not Ham. But in your version of the story, everything is nonsensical.

Even in our own culture, we use slang within literal conversations. We may say that is a "cool" car. But that does not mean the car is cold in temperature. We may say to our wife, "Honey, this feijoada (a Brazilian dish) is the cat's meow." That does not mean this food is literally the sound a cat makes.

It is the same with the Bible.
If you do not grasp it's metaphors, you will misunderstand what the Bible is actually saying many times.

But again, please believe as you wish.


...

 

[Vicomte13]

Is that knowledge relevant to comprehend what was occurring in the Temple, acceptable by the onlooking Pharisees and objected by Jesus?

God Bless,
SBC

No, but it IS fundamental to establishing the literal truth of each word of the Bible. It has been asserted by many that if any words in the Bible are wrong, if there is any conflict, that the whole Bible and faith fails.

This is pretty bad theological view, because there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.

Now, I used the "turning over the tables" business because in the narratives in the Gospels it happens at two very different points in Jesus' life. One gospel has Jesus doing it practically right out of the chute. The others have Jesus doing it at the end of his life. There is a chronological issue there, and a pretty stark one.

In our discussion, the Hebrew text says idiomatically and explicitly that Ham had sex with his mother - that's what "seeing his father's nakedness" means in Hebrew, just like "the bone of the day" in Hebrew means high noon. Idiom is idiom, and when it is used, it means what the idiom means, not what the words literally say.

If one ignores the idiom, then what happens in the text is incomprehensible: Noah gets drunk (which is not a sin as such) and falls asleep naked in his tent (which is not a sin). Ham sees his father naked (which is not a sin as such, and not particularly shocking). He tells his brothers, and they walk in backwards to cover their father, without looking (an excessive and strange thing to do, given that seeing your father naked is neither traumatic, nor a thing that would result in a "shielding your eyes" moment - ESPECIALLY given that God never gave a single commandment before or after that suggested that anybody would have to do such a thing.

Noah wakes up, and "knows what Ham has done". HOW? And then he curses CAINAN, not Ham.

This is a pretty evil act by Noah, given that the sins of the father are not to be imputed to the Son.

If you read it literally without understanding the idiom, the entire episode is strange, bitter, and culminates with Noah making a savage and evil pronouncement upon an innocent person...a pronouncement that the Bible dwells upon. "Cursed be Cainan."

Lots of people don't like Obama, others don't like Trump. Cursed be Malia Obama and Barron Trump! They shall suffer and forever be slaves and prisoners because their fathers are jerks!

That is what a literal read without understand idiom gets you out of the naked Noah story, and that oath of cursing is utterly evil. It is evil to curse children because of their father's sins and crimes.

And the Bible repeats the curse.

How can a man, Noah, curse anybody with any effect anyway? He's just a man.

Or was Noah such a special man to God that he - in a drunken rage - can make an utterly evil and frankly stupid curse, of a son, for his father's non-sin (God never said that seeing your father naked is a sin) - and God actually carries out the curse? So, God does evil because Noah says so?

It's utterly incoherent.

And it's stupid - because "see your father's nakedness" is a Hebrew idiom, and it means "have sex with his wife".

Once the meaning of the words is taken into account, then the really serious thing that has taken place here starts to make a lot more sense. Why it would be Cainan who would be rejected by Noah and cursed by him makes sense. Why Noah had no more children with Na'amah his wife after that makes sense. Ham's speaking to his brothers about it, why that was disgraceful, makes sense.

And then, just as day follows night, it is clear that the reference to Ham's child, Cainan, which is mentioned in the text before Cainan's conception, does not foreclose - and indeed foretells - the events that follow as being the result of Ham's and Na'amah's dalliance.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

His wife was not mentioned, so why assume anything about her?

Well, because of the metaphorical phrase used in Genesis 9 is defined for us in Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 18:7.

However what was mentioned is:
Noah had planted a vineyard.
Noah had drank from what the vineyard had produced.
Noah drank so much he became drunk.

True; And he was also naked.

All three of Noah's sons were in the vicinity of Noah's tent.

The text does not really say that. But it is possible.

Noah was in his own Tent.

Yes, so why cover his nakedness if he was in the privacy of his own tent?

Noah's son Ham entered Noah's Tent, then told his brother's what he saw in the Tent.

This interpretation only works if you ignore the Bible's use of slang or metaphors that is given to us in Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 18:7.

The brother's then entered the Tent without looking and covered what Ham had seen.

You have to look at least somewhat to put a sheet on someone. Unless of course they were wearing blind folds and were playing pin the donkey. But again, you are misunderstanding what is happening here because you are ignoring the Bible's use of metaphors. Imagine if someone did not understand our slang in our culture. Imagine their confusion of trying to make your words out to be literal when they may not always be.

This is not about parents bathing their "children". This is about adults viewing the nakedness of other adults, who are not husband and wife.

If so, then how did Noah know about this as soon as he woke up? Why would Ham brag about such a thing to his brothers?
Why would the brothers care to cover their father if he was in the privacy of his own tent? Why curse Canaan for what Ham did? Nothing makes sense in your version of the story.

Out of context.

The problem is that how did Noah know that his son was looking at him wrongfully? Please hypothesize.

You are likely correct. It is common for societies to dictate what is acceptable according to them, without consideration if it is acceptable to God.

When no sin results from such things then surely God would not be against it.

Gen.6

1. [9] These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

I do not view Noah being drunk and being in his own private Tent as a sin.
Never is it mentioned, that Noah stood against God, which would be a sin against God.

Drunkenness has always been sinful in both the Old and New Covenants. But obviously Noah would have repented of this because of what happened between Ham and his wife.

Nowhere does the text say that Has was invited into his father's tent.

But you are assuming that.

No idea. Nor did I say Ham was ashamed. IMV Ham should have been ashamed, but that was not the point, nor mentioned by me.

I thought before you said he was ashamed.

Again. What sin? I do not find Noah committing a sin.

Drunkenness.
Oh, and faithful men of God can stumble.
David committed adultery and murder.
Granted, he repented of these sins.

Did Noah stand against God? no

One can sin and think they are okay with God; But that does not mean (in their minds) they are standing against him when they do sin. But therein lies the deception.

Did Noah trespass against Anyone? no

Yes, He trespassed against God by his drunkenness. But he no doubt repented.

Did Noah drink excessively then prance around naked? no

Continued drunkenness can lead to that.
For drinking excessively destroys judgment.

Did Noah lie in his own private tent uncovered? yes
Did anything teach you in Scripture a threshold is a division between what belongs to one and not another? it should have

What son is not welcome in his father's house?

Did Noah lie in his own private tent uncovered? yes

Which again, does not make sense in your version of the story. Who cares whether Noah is naked or not if he is in the privacy of his own tent. Nobody is going to see him in his tent.

And why do we even know this?
Because Noah's own son crossed the threshold of Noah's private tent,

Your acting like people today who have security systems as a part of their homes. It was only 8 people that came off the Ark at this point.

saw his fathers nakedness and then went out and announced it.

Announced it to who?
There were only 8 people at that time.
The text says he told his 2 brothers.
This makes no sense unless they were wicked at looking at naked men, too.

It doesn't matter why his son entered Noah's tent.

This is why you not be a good criminal investigator. Knowing a person's motives is a key factor in understanding the truth.

It does matter that he did.

It does matter what people do.
But discovering the truth of what Ham actually did as recorded by the Bible is knowing how to properly interpret the Bible to figure that out.

It does matter that he then went out and announced what he saw.

Ham's sin was not in revealing the truth, it was his seeing his father's nakedness (Which is an idiom for sexual relations with one's mother according to Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 18:7).

It is significant there is no scripture of Ham admitting his own self being ashamed. It is significant there is no scripture of Ham asking his father to forgive him.

There are many reasons why God may choose to omit certain facts from Scripture. The lack of revealing a person's motive should not be the sole reason. Jesus's childhood is not revealed to us in Scripture. We cannot begin to speculate on why God did not reveal this to us.

It is the father that teaches lessons. Ham was about 100 yrs old, and apparently had not learned when he should be ashamed, or to ask another for forgiveness when they trespass against another.

There are holes in your story that do not add up. So I do not believe that is what it is talking about.

Apparently Noah thought it appropriate for Ham to experience him to have his own son (Caanan) shame him (Ham), for Ham to grasp the understanding.

That of course is simply speculative.

But that does not make any sense.
It would be wrong for Noah to punish an innocent and let the guilty party go.

It is also excessive punishment for the crime, too. Cursing a child for the father looking upon his own father?

God Bless,
SBC

May God bless you.
And please be well.


...

 

[Vicomte13]

Nor does scripture itself present any such knowledge that Ham had a sexual relation with his fathers wife, or that by such supposed relationship was an offspring produced.

Scripture as presented is clear, without adding mindful imaginations.

Yes it is clear. It is written in Hebrew, not English. If you cannot read Hebrew, you have never read Scripture at all. You have read an echo of Scripture. In ancient Hebrew, the expression translated into English as "to see the nakedness of" means "have sex with". That's Hebrew. That's what the Bible SAYS in Hebrew. It says "Ham had sex with his father's wife" - that is what "Ham saw his father's nakedness" means, in the Hebrew. The Hebrew is not those English words. It is Hebrew words that, when put together, say that.

If I write in English "I was struggling to get it right, and I hit the bullseye with my last effort", if you translate that into French and say "I was struggling to get it right, and with my last effort I hit the eye of the bull", you have translated what I said literally word-for-word, and your translation does not accurately convey what I have said at all.

I have no bull. Nobody ever hits a bull in the eye. In English, "The Bullseye" has not had anything to do with cows for probably 1000 years, probably ever.

In Hebrew, Ham did not batter the eye of a bull. He hit a target. He did not see his father naked. He slept with his mother.

In English, the wooden translation of an idiom by medieval people who had killed all the local Jews, did not understand Hebrew, and did not understand Hebrew culture, produced a wooden, false, literalist "Hit the bull in the eye" translation that has become tradition. But Scripture does not say that Ham saw his father naked. It says, in Hebrew, that Ham slept with his mother's wife while his father was drunk.

To assert that it says that he saw his father naked is false. It does not say that.
In bad English translation it says it, but translation is but an echo, and translation is not the actual Scripture. In that case, the translation is badly in error, and if you stand on it, you are too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If one reads the Bible in English or Hebrew, one has to simply be aware or sensitive it's Metonymy or figures of speech: Here is a brief introduction on Metonymy in the Bible:

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Examples of Metaphors (Figures of Speech):

• Proverbs 13:14
The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life.
​

In our first example, teaching is compared to a fountain, but not just any fountain. The fountain of life is a common metaphor that suggests a continuing source of sustenance and life.

• Isaiah 64:8
But now, O Lord, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.​

In this metaphor, God is compared to a potter who molds clay. God’s followers are the clay and are subject to his design and influence.

• Psalms 23:1
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.​

Here is a commonly alluded to metaphor from one of the most famous passages in The Bible. God is compared to a shepherd, someone whose duty it is to look after and care for his sheep.

• John 6:35
Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.’​

In this metaphor, Jesus compares himself to bread. The bread of life is a symbolic idea that Jesus offers eternal fulfillment. Like bread sustains us in life, Jesus’s metaphor suggests that he can sustain his followers in a spiritual sense.

• John 8:12
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the Light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.’​

Here is another metaphor that Jesus used to talk about himself. He calls himself “the light of the world.” In The Bible, light refers to salvation, and darkness refers to sinfulness.

• Revelation 19:7
Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.
​

This example contains three metaphors. The lamb is Jesus, the bride is the Church, or the followers of Christ, and the marriage is the union of the two in heaven.

• Isaiah 5:5
So now let me tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground.​

In this example, God is warning Israel, which he refers to as his “vineyard.” God says he will remove “its hedge” or protective surroundings and allow its destruction.

• Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.​

Metaphors about God and Jesus abound in The Bible. God is commonly referred to as a rock, as in this example.

• Psalms 18:2
The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
​

As in the last example, God is compared to a rock. But this metaphor is expanded in this verse from Psalms. God is compared to a fortress, a shield, and a stronghold to illustrate his role as a protector.

• Revelation 21:6
And He said unto me, it is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.​

Here is another commonly quoted verse from The Bible. In it, God compares himself to the Greek alphabet. The first and last letter of the Greek alphabet is alpha and omega, respectively.

• Genesis 49:9
Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?​

This verse illustrates another commonly alluded to name of God. In this verse, Judah, one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is called a “lion’s whelp,” or a lion’s cub. It is from this verse that the term of God as “the Lion of Judah” originates.

• John 14:6
Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’​

In this verse, Jesus establishes himself as not only the pathway to God, but also as truth and life itself.

• John 15:5
I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.​

Here is another commonly quoted Bible verse with a famous metaphor. In this example, Jesus compares himself to a vine and calls his followers branches of the vine, in that they are extensions of himself. Also, Jesus states his followers will “bear much fruit,” meaning good things will come as a result of their faith.

• 2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!​

In this example, followers of Christ are said to be “a new creation.” It is metaphorical, of course, because something already existing cannot be created.

• Matthew 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.​

Here is another famous metaphor for the followers of Christ. They are compared to salt, in that they have a purpose in the world. In biblical times, salt was very important as a preservative, flavoring, and even as currency. This metaphor says that followers of Christ have no purpose without Christ.


Source:
15 Famous Metaphors in The Bible - Literary Devices



...

 

[4x4toy]

Go to 31:50 if this is true and Mrs Noah was 10 ft tall Ham would've got a blackeye to go with Canaans curse

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Go to 31:50 if this is true and Mrs Noah was 10 ft tall Ham would've got a blackeye to go with Canaans curse

I thought the narrator of the video said Noah's wife was 18 foot. In either case, this is a bogus find and or they are confusing a Nephilim skeleton for Noah's wife. There are more legit evidences for the global flood and Noah's story and this is not one of them, for sure.

I can't watch stuff like that for too long because it mocks God's Word.


...

 

[4x4toy]

I thought the narrator of the video said Noah's wife was 18 foot. In either case, this is a bogus find and or they are confusing a Nephilim skeleton for Noah's wife. There are more legit evidences for the global flood and Noah's story and this is not one of the, for sure.


...

18 ft grave

 

[Bible Highlighter]

18 ft grave

Ah, okay. Thank you. I do have ringing in the ears. So my hearing is not like a fox like it used to be.


...