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

[Bible Highlighter]

Here's my idiom, SBC sounds more like Shem and Japheth on the matter and you sound like Ham dancing around making something out of nothing .

So where in the text did Ham dance around?
Where in the text did Ham make something out of nothing?


...

 

[4x4toy]

So where in the text did Ham dance around?
Where in the text did Ham make something out of nothing?


...

I must have read something some where else and just decided to tie it in to the story ..

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I must have read something some where else and just decided to tie it in to the story ..

Also, it is not true that I am not making nothing out of this whole thing, as well.
I have been relating the story of Ham and Noah to Jesus within this thread.
Jesus is definitely not nothing in my opinion.


...

 

[4x4toy]

Also, it is not true that I am not making nothing out of this whole thing, as well.
I have been relating the story of Ham and Noah to Jesus within this thread.
Jesus is definitely not nothing in my opinion.


...

I suppose the effort you put into your view translates into leading many folks to Jesus , keep up the good work , for real

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All glory be unto Jesus Christ.


...

 

[SBC]

True; And he was also naked.[/QUOTE

Yep.

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

The text says ALL THREE sons entered Noah's tent. Of course that put them in the vicinity of Noah's tent.

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

Scripture teaches to TRUST God. That is what I TRUST. All the slang, metaphors, not literal, etc. is mankind's philosophical introductions, because of their lack of understanding.

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.

My version is what scripture says. You want "speculative" responses from me; then want to determine if they make sense.

Scripture says what it says. Believe it or not.

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

Please hypothesize.

no.

The clue to Noah is; someone entered his tent WITH a covering, that was NOT in his tent when he went into his tent, and the someone covered him with such covering.

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

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.[/QUOTE]

But you are assuming that.

No, I said flat out " Nowhere does the text say that Ham was invited into his father's tent."

I thought before you said he was ashamed

Nope.

Which again, does not make sense in your version of the story.

You can disagree with me agreeing with scripture all day long. That has no affect on me.

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.

Did you not notice scripture saying Noah's son saw him. How is that Noah being alone?

Announced it to who?
The text says he told his 2 brothers.

Announce IS telling.

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

Is that what's going on? A criminal investigation, with speculative motives, in hopes to convict a man who has been dead hundreds of years?

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.

Whom do you believe has ALL knowledge, ALL wisdom, ALL understanding that he is qualified to properly interpret the Bible to figure out that which is not written?

There are many reasons why God may choose to omit certain facts from Scripture.

And it is per your criminal investigation, you are appointed to fill in the holes?

There are holes in your story that do not add up.

Did you not read, I was speculating?

No more will I answer your silly questions.

Here is the story I have said I believe:

Gen 9:
[18] And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
[19] These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
[20] And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
[21] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
[23] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
[24] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
[25] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
[26] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
[27] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

Which are all totally unrelated, right?
Do you know what cross references are?


....

Do you know what TRUTH is?
Do you know what ADDING to Scripture is?

You have said multiple times Ham slept with his father's wife.
Reveal the scripture that says that?

 

[DamianWarS]

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

Here is the story in Genesis 9.

Gen 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."​

Leviticus 18:7 says,

"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."​

So we have:

Thy father's wife = thy father's nakedness.

So when Genesis 9:22 says,

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, "​

It is saying that the nakedness of his father (Noah) was Noah's wife.
It is talking about Noah's wife!
This is done for the obvious reason so as not to humilate her within the Scriptures.

Also, why was Canaan cursed?

Because God's written Word shows us that sleeping with one's mother is punishable by death!

Leviticus 20:11 says,

"And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.."​

We also have to realize here that discovering "nakedness" is a euphemism for sexual relations. This makes Genesis 9 all the more clear.

So if we were to summarize the story in these verses:

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine.
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk and passes out naked (more than likely because he got frisky with his wife as a result of his drunkenness).
Gen 9:22 Ham (father of Canaan is highlighted) seeing that his father is incapacitated makes advances on his mother. After all, sex is pleasurable, men tend to desire multiple partners, not many women are available after a global flood, and his mother is probably still attractive due to pre-flood aging conditions. He gloats of his conquest to his brothers.
Gen 9:23 The brothers try damage control. They cover up their mother (is she drunk also?). The Bible tends to omit relevant facts about woman in Genesis (what was her name?).
Gen 9:24 Noah comes back into consciousness and finds out or realizes that his wife was violated by Ham.

***[A Lapse or a Gap in Time]***
(For an example of an unexplained gap in time, see Matthew 3:13 and compare with Matthew 2)​

Gen 9:25-26 Then Noah curses Canaan and or the new nation that will be formed from this union.​

The verse 22 highlighting of Ham as Canaan’s father makes sense if the Jewish reader understood the incestuous origin of Canaan. This would also be an anachronistic clarification that would be very helpful to the reader in this circumstance. Otherwise, it makes very little sense.

In Summary, the literalist story is different:

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine.
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk.
Gen 9:22 Ham walks into Noah’s tent and sees him naked. Ham then has perverted thoughts or has some sort of debased enjoyment (Literalists claim this with no textual evidence).
Gen 9:23 The brothers walk into the tent backwards and cover up their naked father.
Gen 9:24 Noah comes back into consciousness and figures out that Ham saw him naked (how? The text does not tell, so the literalist must think this happened by magic).
Gen 9:25-26 He curses a baby/child/young boy for the sin of the father presumably because the son was wicked (though the text never indicates this).​

Note the time lapse between verses 24 and 25 in this version as well. Did Noah wake up, realize what had happened and then proclaim a curse all without talking to the brothers or even leaving the tent? Some sort of time lapse is indicated in the sentence. Storytellers use time lapses for convenience.

In short, those who claim that Ham merely saw his father naked have no explanation for Canaan’s curse and end up claiming that God curses children for the sins of their fathers. They also end up believing that multi-generational curses can be levied for mere sight of something that naturally occurs in human beings (nakedness). They also violate their own interpretation rules with candor. The facts point to Canaan being the result of an incestuous relationship between Noah’s wife and Ham.

In fact, we see this event repeated in the Bible elsewhere.

Lot's Daughters get Lot drunk and they take advantage of him and they get pregnant. God destroyed both the nations (offspring) of the result of Canaan and from the two daughters of Lot. Death is the punishment for incest according to God's Word (Leviticus 20:11).


Source Used:
was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

...

the interpretation is ambitious but I think overreaches. Lev 18 tells us that the "nakedness" of our mother is comparable to the "nakedness" of our father (v7) and the "nakedness" of our father is the nakedness of our mother (v8). Preceding this it says to not uncover the "nakedness" of any blood relation (v6) and if you continue reading down the examples it likens the "nakedness" of your granddaughter(s) to be your "nakedness" (v10).

I would suggest that in the context of marriage there is a union with your bodies that if one is uncovered so too is the other and both share the shame of the other. So if Noah was shamed by his nakedness then his wife would be shamed as well. Generally speaking if one member of a family is shamed they all are shamed.

"nakedness" is a word for shame. Hebrew is a very concrete language and abstracts are developed through concrete concepts where in english we may use a more abstract word. In Hebrew the word is עֶרְוָה (ervah: H6172) which is a noun and the root is עָרָה (arah: H6168) which is a verb that means "to bare, pour out or expose" similar in english "nakedness" can be an abstract and may not literally express someone naked but rather someone exposed.

However I don't think the text is being cryptic here and Noah actually did get drunk and actually was naked in his tent and Noah's curse was justifiable. To me the text doesn't quite fit if we are talking about Ham impregnating his Mother, then coming out and bragging about it, and his brothers walk in backwards and cover their mother, then 9 months later Noah curses the child all euphemistically referring to "Noah's nakedness"

Ancient hebrew culture operated under a honor/shame culture. You would never do anything to shame your Father and the act of Ham telling his brothers his Father's position was disrespectful and shaming. If he were to honor his Father he probably wouldn't find himself in the tent to begin with but if he did for whatever reason he should have honored his Father in a similar manner that Shem and Japheth did then never spoke word of it to anyone (and if anyone asked to simply say his father is sleeping in his tent). In honor/shame cultures you do not shame your elders, ever! they don't get drunk they don't pass out and they don't expose themselves. It doesn't matter if they actually do these things, because of course they do, what matters is that you always present themselves in a position of honor and Ham did not do this.

Ham put his Father in a position of shame and because of this his punishment was shame. Children are everything in these cultures and bring honor to your household allowing your name to continue. By Noah cursing Canaan he was cursing Ham and putting shame over his entire household for all generations. Remember back at Leviticus 18 shame on children brings shame on their parents. Why curse Ham when you can do one better and curse all his descendants. This text is not only completely acceptable but predictable under the context of an honor/shame culture without having the need to be cryptic, but if we read it only through western eyes we lose it's meaning.

 

[Vicomte13]

The Hebrew word "רָאָה" (ra'ah) for the English word "saw" in Genesis 9:22 can also mean, "enjoy" (whereby we can see 4 other references for it). So one can read it as saying, Ham enjoyed the "nakedness of his father" (i.e. his father's wife).

Strong's H72000

For we can see "his father nakedness" = "his father's wife" in Leviticus 20,

Leviticus 20:11
"And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:"

Here it is in the traditional text in red:

Gen 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."​

And here is the text with the words exchanged using Leviticus 20, and the alternate word "enjoyed" for the word "saw.":

Gen 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, enjoyed his father's wife, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered his father's wife; and their faces were backward, and they saw not his father's wife.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."​

...​

Yes. It's a Hebrew idiom and it has a specific meaning. To translate those words as "saw his father's nakedness" is not actually translating the words at all, because what they mean is not conveyed.

I have tried to use examples from English to make this point to people.
Perhaps I can make the point better by taking French expressions and rendering them directly into the English, with a nice "formal equivalence" translation, such as is being used with "saw his father's nakedness".

This is not pie, and it won't make a tobacco. In effect, we're not out of the hotel and it smells of pine tree. Some folks say they have their fingers in the nose when they read this. The cow! It is not looking for the little beast to say that they only see fire in it.

There, that's French, translated by formal equivalence into English, just EXACTLY like the Hebrew idiom that we are discussing has been translated by formal equivalence into English. Now, some would say that we either must howl with the wolves or take our legs and shoes, but I intend to take my courage with two hands and stand here and fight to the death on this one, because it's important.

I would ask any and all to read my formally equivalent translation into English, two paragraphs up, and tell me exactly what it means. It actually is a completely coherent paragraph.

So was the last sentence of my last paragraph: "Now, some would say that we either must howl with the wolves or take our legs and shoes, but I intend to take my courage with two hands and stand here and fight to the death on this one, because it's important."

What that means in English, "Now, some would say that we either must 'do as the Romans do' and go along or run away, but I intend to stand firm and fight this one to the end, because it's important."

What about my paragraph that starts "This is not pie..." That's all formally translated to English from the French, just like "saw the nakedness of his father" is from Hebrew. Nothing in that sentence translated from French means anything like what the words say, other than through an impossible-to-reconstruct-from-just-looking-at-it series of twists. The same is true of that expression in Hebrew: "to see the nakedness of someone", or "the bone of the day".

Because I have a full bowl (meaning: I'm irritated) by the discussion, I put this to everybody. If you think that you can ignore idiom and just read things literally, tell me what this paragraph translated literally, through formal equivalence, from French means:

This is not pie, and it won't make a tobacco. In effect, we're not out of the hotel and it smells of pine. Some folks say they have their fingers in the nose when they read this. The cow! It is not looking for the little beast to say that they only see fire in it.

“To see his father’s nakedness” does not mean he saw his father naked. It never meant that. Those words strung together like that do not have anything to do with his father, or his father’s nudity. What they MEAN, in Hebrew, is “he had sex with his father’s wife”. The words don’t literally mean what they say. “He porked her” has nothing at all to do with pigs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

the interpretation is ambitious but I think overreaches. Lev 18 tells us that the "nakedness" of our mother is comparable to the "nakedness" of our father (v7) and the "nakedness" of our father is the nakedness of our mother (v8). Preceding this it says to not uncover the "nakedness" of any blood relation (v6) and if you continue reading down the examples it likens the "nakedness" of your granddaughter(s) to be your "nakedness" (v10).

I would suggest that in the context of marriage there is a union with your bodies that if one is uncovered so too is the other and both share the shame of the other. So if Noah was shamed by his nakedness then his wife would be shamed as well. Generally speaking if one member of a family is shamed they all are shamed.

"nakedness" is a word for shame. Hebrew is a very concrete language and abstracts are developed through concrete concepts where in english we may use a more abstract word. In Hebrew the word is עֶרְוָה (ervah: H6172) which is a noun and the root is עָרָה (arah: H6168) which is a verb that means "to bare, pour out or expose" similar in english "nakedness" can be an abstract and may not literally express someone naked but rather someone exposed.

However I don't think the text is being cryptic here and Noah actually did get drunk and actually was naked in his tent and Noah's curse was justifiable. To me the text doesn't quite fit if we are talking about Ham impregnating his Mother, then coming out and bragging about it, and his brothers walk in backwards and cover their mother, then 9 months later Noah curses the child all euphemistically referring to "Noah's nakedness"

Ancient hebrew culture operated under a honor/shame culture. You would never do anything to shame your Father and the act of Ham telling his brothers his Father's position was disrespectful and shaming. If he were to honor his Father he probably wouldn't find himself in the tent to begin with but if he did for whatever reason he should have honored his Father in a similar manner that Shem and Japheth did then never spoke word of it to anyone (and if anyone asked to simply say his father is sleeping in his tent). In honor/shame cultures you do not shame your elders, ever! they don't get drunk they don't pass out and they don't expose themselves. It doesn't matter if they actually do these things, because of course they do, what matters is that you always present themselves in a position of honor and Ham did not do this.

Ham put his Father in a position of shame and because of this his punishment was shame. Children are everything in these cultures and bring honor to your household allowing your name to continue. By Noah cursing Canaan he was cursing Ham and putting shame over his entire household for all generations. Remember back at Leviticus 18 shame on children brings shame on their parents. Why curse Ham when you can do one better and curse all his descendants. This text is not only completely acceptable but predictable under the context of an honor/shame culture without having the need to be cryptic, but if we read it only through western eyes we lose it's meaning.

However, there are several points that you are ignoring, though.

#1. God's Morality or Goodness.

God is into fair justice. His morality is not subject to culture. Luke 12:47-48 says,

Lk 12:47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Lk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
​

You are suggesting that God had Noah curse Canaan over a very minor transgression. For neither Ham and nor Canaan do anything even worthy of many stripes that he and his descendants were going to receive. Looking at one's father's nakedness and telling your brothers about it is like J-walking. I know most today if they seen their father naked in his room and they told their sons or daughters about it, they would be like ... "So what?" "He can do whatever he likes in the privacy of his room." "Maybe he has to air out a rash in his lower regions or something." "Maybe he got frisky with his wife." "Maybe he was hot."

In either case, cursing Canaan, who is Ham's son is overkill. It is a curse upon all the descendants. Over what? His father looking at his own father naked? Really? It not only does not make any sense but it is not in any way deserving of a crime to curse scores of unborn people. Question: Is it ever mentioned in the Bible that the Canaanites struggled with looking at their own fathers in the nude? Surely not. But we do see the Canaanite's sin being mentioned in relation to incest laws in Leviticus 18 (See Leviticus 18:3). This was the crime from the very beginning that was befitting of God's judgment.
​

#2. God's Word on the Teaching of Idioms or Figures of Speech.

For example: Revelation 17:3 says,
"...and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads."

Yet, Revelation 17:9 says,
"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains." (Revelation 17:9).

What you are basically saying to me the same phrase or figure of speech that is explained to us in Leviticus 18 and seen in Genesis 9 is like ignoring the example given to us in Revelation 17:9. In other words, it would be like ignoring that the seven heads are not seven mountains according to Revelation 17:9. No doubt there are probably people out there who do not think the seven heads are seven mountains. But the point here is that you are essentially doing that. You are ignoring the explanation of idioms as found in the Bible.

For the idiom in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 is still true. It is not erased by what is said later. But let's look at verse 10 in Leviticus 18. What Leviticus 18:10 is saying is essentially this: A father who sleeps with his own daughter is forbidden in doing so because she is genetically related. It is saying that the daughter is genetically related to her father. Hence, why she is his own nakedness. They have similar traits physically when they are both nude. They are both of the same flesh. So the possession is different than say a husband and wife who are joined together in marriage. That kind of possession is different because they are not supposed to now be sleeping with close of kin. So the possesion between a husband and wife is different vs. the possession of a father and his daughter. It still does NOT change the idiom or figure of speech that is defined for us in the Bible. In other words, it is like you are coming along from another country and you are attempting to change the word "cool" within our culture here in America because you prefer people to speak more literal. But life does not work that way. The Bible has figures of speech that defines things for us. You can either ignore them or accept them. The choice is yours.​

#3. How the Real World Works.

In your literal wooden reading of the "Story of Noah and Ham", you ignore how the real world works in order to make your interpretation or view on this story true.

Here are problems you run into that ignore reality or the real world:

(a) Most people today do not stare at their own father's nakedness.
(b) If somebody was sick and perverted to stare at their father naked, what would it accomplish or serve to tell his brothers about it? Surely, he should know that they would not share his perverted views and it would be like admitting to your own crime.
(c) If Ham's gazing upon his father was not sexual but merely was a means to tell his brothers about how silly their father was by his drunkenness, I highly doubt they would be concerned about his father being naked within the privacy of his own tent. Now, if Noah was out in the open outside of his tent all naked and passed out drunk, that would be different. But nothing like that has happened here.
(d) What purpose does it serve for the brothers to put a sheet on their father if he was inside the privacy of his own tent? Where was Noah's wife in all of this? Eight people were saved on the Ark. There were no other towns for her to visit anybody. At this point, during sleep, her duty is to be by her husband's side. Could not Noah's wife cover her husband's nakedness?
(e) Noah woke up and knew what his son had done unto him. How is this possible? If a person is unconscious and sleeping, they are not aware of what is going on in the world around them (unless Ham was given divine intervention).
(f) Why would Noah immediately wake up and then to start to curse Canaan (Who is a son of Ham)? Why curse the son for the father's crime? It makes no sense.
(g) Now, if you are into the idea of Ham sexually abusing his father theory: Then how did Noah not wake up during such abuse?​

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The error of going by one's own definition on things:

...

 

[Vicomte13]

The idiom in Levticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 still is true. It is not erased by what is said later. But even still, in Leviticus 18:10, a father sleeping with her own daughter is forbidden because she is genetically related. It is saying that the daughter is genetically releated to her father. Hence, why she is his own nakedness. They have similar traits physically when they are both nude. They are both of the same flesh. So the possession is different than say a husband and wife who are joined together in marriage. That kind of possession is different because they are not supposed to now be sleeping with close of kin. So the possesion between a husband and wife is different vs. the possession of a father and his daughter. It still does NOT change the idiom or figure of speech that is defined for us in the Bible. In other words, it is like you are coming along from another country and you are attempting to change the word "cool" within your culture because you prefer people to speak more literal. But life does not work that way. The Bible has figures of speech that it defines for us. You can ignore them or accept them. The choice is yours.

...

As an example of what you are saying here, our own English has an idiom we are all using here. We use it so casually we don't realize that it is an idiom, but it is.

It is not contrary to any law of God for a father to sleep with his daughter, or for two, or three, or five men to all sleep together. It IS contrary to God's law for a father to have sex with his daughter, or for two, three or five men to have sex with each other.

That simple expression "sleep with" is an English idiom to avoid directly saying "had sex with". In the older English Bible, they liked the word "know" for this purpose, or "had relations with".

LITERALLY, to "sleep with" is to lie down in the same bed, or on the same mat, or the same floor, or in the same tent, and it means just that: to fall asleep and to be asleep in each other's presence. It is never sinful in the Bible for two people of whatever sex or relation to sleep with each other, under any circumstance. Sleeping together is fine. It is fine, indeed, healthy, for parents to sleep with their babies. When kids climb into their parents bed, it is normal for parents to sleep with their kids. I slept with my grandmother all the time.

It's once the idiom "sleep with" is used to mean "had sex with" that things become confusing - but not really confusing to native speakers.

And that's the grand point of this later part of this thread. "Saw his father's nakedness" has nothing to do with his father having no clothes on. It's an idiom that means "had sex with his father's wife". It is not proper to translate it "literally", because the "literal" translation is not what the text SAYS.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hosea 12:10
"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets"

Similitude: allegory, parable, metaphor, etc.


"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face." (Deuteronomy 34:10).

Moses wrote the first five books of our Bibles (Under the inspiration of God).

Moses wrote a metaphor for sex and it's defined meaning for us in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 and he used one of these same metaphors earlier in Genesis 9. To say they are unrelated is simply to ignore cross references and or the Bible's use of figures of speech.



...

 

[Runswithdogs]

I can see it now....

Noah has a few to many & retires to his tent.

Ham checks to make sure no one is watching & pokes his head through the flap.... then go finds his brothers...

Ham: Yoah dudes, I like tottaly saw dads peepee!

Shem" Gross dude...
Japheth" What is wrong with you dude....?

Shem & Japheth grab a blanket & go into the tent where Noah is alone & toss it over him.. incase anyone of the other 4 people currently alive on the 3rd rock from the sun might possibley wander by & stick their head in also.

Noah wakes up and stumbles out of the tent screaming "Ham you lil ****.. I know what you did.. Your Kids gonna die for this.. in fact all your kids, grandkids,.. great grandkids into infinity.. their all gonna die cause you saw my todger! That will teach you! "



Yeah... makes total sense......

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As an example of what you are saying here, our own English has an idiom we are all using here. We use it so casually we don't realize that it is an idiom, but it is.

It is not contrary to any law of God for a father to sleep with his daughter, or for two, or three, or five men to all sleep together. It IS contrary to God's law for a father to have sex with his daughter, or for two, three or five men to have sex with each other.

That simple expression "sleep with" is an English idiom to avoid directly saying "had sex with". In the older English Bible, they liked the word "know" for this purpose, or "had relations with".

LITERALLY, to "sleep with" is to lie down in the same bed, or on the same mat, or the same floor, or in the same tent, and it means just that: to fall asleep and to be asleep in each other's presence. It is never sinful in the Bible for two people of whatever sex or relation to sleep with each other, under any circumstance. Sleeping together is fine. It is fine, indeed, healthy, for parents to sleep with their babies. When kids climb into their parents bed, it is normal for parents to sleep with their kids. I slept with my grandmother all the time.

It's once the idiom "sleep with" is used to mean "had sex with" that things become confusing - but not really confusing to native speakers.

And that's the grand point of this later part of this thread. "Saw his father's nakedness" has nothing to do with his father having no clothes on. It's an idiom that means "had sex with his father's wife". It is not proper to translate it "literally", because the "literal" translation is not what the text SAYS.

I totally agree 100%.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I can see it now....

Noah has a few to many & retires to his tent.

Ham checks to make sure no one is watching & pokes his head through the flap.... then go finds his brothers...

Ham: Yoah dudes, I like tottaly saw dads peepee!

Shem" Gross dude...
Japheth" What is wrong with you dude....?

Shem & Japheth grab a blanket & go into the tent where Noah is alone & toss it over him.. incase anyone of the other 4 people currently alive on the 3rd rock from the sun might possibley wander by & stick their head in also.

Noah wakes up and stumbles out of the tent screaming "Ham you lil ****.. I know what you did.. Your Kids gonna die for this.. in fact all your kids, grandkids,.. great grandkids into infinity.. their all gonna die cause you saw my todger! That will teach you! "



Yeah... makes total sense......

Yet, this is what some believers say is true (or something like this). While the standard rule is to read a Bible text literally (if there is no indication of the context and or cross reference to say otherwise), God never wanted us to read His Word with wooden literalism on every single word of our Bibles. The Bible also speaks in metaphors or figures of speech. If we ignore the Bible's metaphors we are going to be in confusion as to what the Bible says many times.


...

 

[Vicomte13]

It's been over 4 hours since I posted a challenge about translation and idioms. This demonstrates quite well the difference between translating "literally" for "formal equivalence" (word-for-word) and translating literally for meaning.

A paragraph in French was translated literally, formally equivalent style, like the KJV.

Here is what it said in English:

This is not pie, and it won't make a tobacco. In effect, we're not out of the hotel and it smells of pine tree. Some folks say they have their fingers in the nose when they read this. The cow! It is not looking for the little beast to say that they only see fire in it.


To make a point about Hebrew (specifically, why "he saw his father's nakedness" cannot be read or interpreted literally, because it does not mean that he saw his father naked), I offer the paragraph above, literally translated word-for-word.

What does it mean? I asked.

As I expected, nobody made a fly. (“Make a fly” in French means “hit the nail on the head”.) In fact, nobody tried.

That's not surprising, because this is not pie. That is a French idiom that means "This is hard."

Because the point I am making is that formal equivalence word-for-word translation does not always work if one wants to understand the Scripture, it won’t make tobacco. That means "It won’t be popular and successful."

We’re not out of the hotel means We have barely started and are surrounded by problems (English: not out of the woods

It smells of pine: It has one foot in the grave.

Have their fingers in their nose: It’s easy

The Cow! : B.S.!

Look for the little beast: nitpick.

Only see fire in something: To be clueless and miss the obvious.


So, a proper translation of the French into English, that actually conveyed the MEANING, is: This is hard, and it won’t be popular or successful. In effect, we’ve barely started and the problems are everywhere, and the project already looks to be a failure. Some folks say it’s trivially easy to read this. Rubbish! It is not being nitpicky to say that they are completely clueless about what they are seeing.

THAT is what that paragraph means. It is composed of idioms. The thing about idioms is that THEY DO NOT MEAN, AT ALL, THE WORDS OF WHICH THEY ARE COMPOSED. They are complete expressions which mean something totally different. And, in fact, if one INSISTS that they actually DO mean exactly what the words say, then that person is being mulish.

The only way to correctly translate an idiom is with dynamic equivalence: meaning for meaning. Word for word "formal equivalence" will not only not tell you what the original text said when you are dealing with idioms, it will give you a string of words which absolutely does not mean what the words say. If you take an idiom literally, you will not in any way understand the text at all.

“To see his father’s nakedness” does not mean he saw his father naked. It never meant that. Those words strung together like that do not have anything to do with his father, or his father’s nudity. What they MEAN, in Hebrew, is “he had sex with his father’s wife”. The words don’t literally mean what they say. “He porked her” has nothing at all to do with pigs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, on top of that, the same incident between 3 people had both involved:

#1. A righteous man passing out drunk after a major miraculous Judgment.
#2. A pregnancy transpiring as a result of incest among their own children.
#3. The descendants of both of these incidents of incest are destroyed.
#4. The number 9. The first incident happens in Genesis 9 and the second incident happens in Genesis 19.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

The text says ALL THREE sons entered Noah's tent. Of course that put them in the vicinity of Noah's tent.

Dear SBC:

Well, I am not in disagreement that all three sons were inside the tent. You said, all three were in the vicinity of the tent.

The word "vicinity" is defined as:
"the area or region near or about a place; surrounding district; neighborhood."

the definition of vicinity

In other words, we do not know how close the two other brothers were. They could have been a half hour away by walking distance or they could have been closer. We are not given that information. But it does seem very plausible or likely they were nearby or at least 5-10 minutes away by walking distance.

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

Scripture teaches to TRUST God. That is what I TRUST. All the slang, metaphors, not literal, etc. is mankind's philosophical introductions, because of their lack of understanding.

But you are not trusting the use of metaphors Moses employs in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11. You think this same phrase or metaphor mention in Genesis 9 is unrelated and or a coincidence.

Also, you never really answered my question:

Why cover Noah's nakedness if he was in the privacy of his own tent after Ham left?

My version is what scripture says. You want "speculative" responses from me; then want to determine if they make sense. Scripture says what it says. Believe it or not.

Yes, I want you to THINK and see if you can make sense out of what God's Word is saying here.
You cannot answer my questions because it is impossible for you and others to simply do so.
God does not want us to read Scripture based on an interpretation that makes 0% sense.
A person can misinterpret Scripture and do all sorts of bad things in the name of God's Word and say the same thing you are saying to me with your words: "Scripture says what it says. Believe it or not."
The true test of whether or not you are on the side of the truth is if your belief on this portion of Scripture is based upon the whole of God's Word and if your belief is based upon how our normal world operates.

no.

The clue to Noah is; someone entered his tent WITH a covering, that was NOT in his tent when he went into his tent, and the someone covered him with such covering.

Yes, I already stated before within this thread that the sheet represents Jesus Christ.
But you are still refusing to answer my questions (Which makes it appear like your position or view on this story is too weak so as to be defended in any way).

No, I said flat out " Nowhere does the text say that Ham was invited into his father's tent."

I am saying you are assuming that Noah's sons were not invited into Noah's tent.
It is possible that they were not invited without invitation or some kind of call.
But we really do not know that.
You are assuming that the sons needed to be invited (based on what you said in a prior post).

Nope.

Sorry about that. I misunderstood what you said.
It is true. You did not say Ham was ashamed. But you did say Noah was ashamed.

For you said, I quote:

"Ham seeing his father naked was not a crime. It was a SHAME unto Noah.
The lesson is; what a mans child DOES can be a SHAME unto the father.
The bigger lesson is; that also applies spiritually; that a human man CAN be a SHAME unto Father God.

The SHAME against Noah was committed BY Noah's youngest son." ~ Quote by: SBC. ​

You can disagree with me agreeing with scripture all day long. That has no affect on me.

Please do not say it like that. For surely you have compassion for your fellow brother to see the truth in God's Word. In other words, it should effect you if your fellow brother cannot see what God's Word says.
But if this is truly the case, then you would care enough to answer my questions so as to make sense out of this story. But we both know you cannot do that. Chances are: You more than likely think the story needs to be believed even though it cannot be explained rationally. For on the one hand, you keep saying, "trust God's Word" and yet on the other hand: You keep shooting down any rational explations for this 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.

Did you not notice scripture saying Noah's son saw him. How is that Noah being alone?

Your missing the point. The point is that Ham telling his brothers about his father's nakedness within his own private tent would not have made any difference to the others all that much. If anything, Noah would have wondered why his son was in his tent. Why should Noah assume the wrong thing? Perhaps Ham needed something very important. Maybe it was an emergency. But to curse him for seeing him naked when he had already seen him naked as a child (more than likely) is just silly. This version of your story has "Gymnophobia" and "Haphephobia" written all over it.

Announce IS telling.

The word "announce" is defined as:
"make a public and typically formal declaration about a fact, occurrence, or intention"

Ham never had a town hall meeting. There were only 8 people in existence at this point of our story; And Ham only told his two brothers.

Is that what's going on? A criminal investigation, with speculative motives, in hopes to convict a man who has been dead hundreds of years?

Actually, it would be thousands of years since this story has transpired and not hundreds of years.
Oh, and no; My goal is not to convict people who are dead already. You miss yet another point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that criminal investigators specialize in seeking out the truth by examing the evidences of a scene and by determining the motives of those who are involved in their investigation of a particular crime. Seeing you do not care to look at things like a criminal investigator does by seeking out the truth by trying to make sense of the story logically, this tells me that you are merely believing something that is not grounded in any kind of reality or truth. You are believing words on a page based on your own code key of interpretation instead of allowing the Bible to interpret things for you. It's why you are kicking against the truths in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11.

Whom do you believe has ALL knowledge, ALL wisdom, ALL understanding that he is qualified to properly interpret the Bible to figure out that which is not written?

But it is written! Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 is your code key to decipher the story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9! But to answer your question: It is Jesus. So yes, I would encourage you to employ Jeremiah 33:3. That is the best number you can ever call. So if you do not believe me, then ask the Lord to show you.

There are many reasons why God may choose to omit certain facts from Scripture.

And it is per your criminal investigation, you are appointed to fill in the holes?

Not at all. Beyond Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 giving us the meaning for the metaphorical phrase in Genesis 9, the rest is speculative and not hard cold facts. Granted, speculations should be based on real life and what the Bible says already. A good detective of the truth, will be able to provide a more clearer picture as to what may have happened. But by looking at Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11, we know that Ham slept with his own mother. This makes more sense out of why Noah cursed Canaan and it supports the believer's use of looking at cross references within Scripture (To have a better understanding).

Did you not read, I was speculating?

Actually, you did say things that were not in the story. Also, you are speculating by assuming that the metaphorical language in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 that we also see in Genesis 9 should go ignored.

No more will I answer your silly questions.

Actually, you didn't answer my questions that truly mattered in regards to our story in Genesis 9.

Here is the story I have said I believe:

Gen 9:
[18] And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
[19] These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
[20] And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
[21] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
[23] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
[24] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
[25] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
[26] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
[27] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant

Yes, I believe these verses as stated, too.
Your reposting them does not help me in any way to see how your view is true.

God Bless,
SBC

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

May God's love shine upon you;
And may you please be well.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you know what TRUTH is?

Dear SBC:

Do I know what "truth" is?

Absolutely!

The truth is Jesus Christ (John 14:6);
And the truth is God's Word (John 17:17).

Do you know what ADDING to Scripture is?

Well, your probably thinking of Revelation 22:18 as the correct answer, right?
But I am sorry to disappoint you.
There is no adding to God's Word going on here in any way.
I am merely employing the same metaphorical phrase and it's meaning in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 that we see in the story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9.
It is called comparing Scripture with Scripture so as to have a better understanding.
For the Bible breaths as a whole and not in isolated verses by themselves.
The rest of what I said in the story in Genesis 9 beyond the metaphorical phrase we see from Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 (that says: Ham slept with Noah's wife) is speculative. Meaning, beyond the fact fact that Ham slept with his mother, the other details I presented are merely possibilities and not cold hard facts. So there is no adding to Scripture here. It is called interpreting the Bible in light of the rest of the Bible.

You have said multiple times Ham slept with his father's wife.
Reveal the scripture that says that?

The phrase "nakedness of his father" or a variation of that appears 3 times in Genesis 9.
This same phrase "nakedness of his father" is said to be a metaphor and it is defined for us in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11.

Seeing Moses wrote both Genesis and Leviticus (under the inspiration of God), you cannot claim that Moses was unaware or ignorant of his own phrase that he defined for us in Leviticus when he also used in Genesis 9. It is also not a coincidence that the same phrase is used. For the metaphorical interpretation on the phrase (taken from Leviticus) sheds light on the story and the rest of God's Word.

I hope this helps.

May the Lord's power and might be unto you this fine day.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...