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

[Apex]

Also, have you ever heard of the "law of first mention" in the Bible? Well, if you haven't, the "law of first mention" is said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine, truth, event, or word is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine or truth. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine (or truth) in other portions of the Word that were given later. The fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine. In view of this fact, it becomes imperative that we understand the law of first mention.

This is not a real law. This is akin to numerology. Who decides how the Biblical books get ordered? Several groups have ordered them differently.

 

[DamianWarS]

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?​

...

you are interpreting this by superimposing western culture. In an honor/shame culture a son dishonoring his father is a serious offense. In an honor/shame culture after a father has been shamed it is the obligation of the sons (remaining) to restore their father's honor without giving him more shame. In a honor/shame culture cursing the eldest son puts shame on not the father and his household but all his generations to come. Remember the 5th commandment or does this too need to be explained with a sexual sin?

to you these are not warranted offences and don't make sense so you try and rationalize them but in ancient cultures they make complete sense and need no further explanation. You further try and make you point by saying God cursed Canaan, the problem is the text only says Noah did the cursing so let's just stick to what the text says.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is akin to numerology.

There is a difference between numerology and the numbers in the Bible.

Numerology Definition:
"the study of numbers, as the figures designating the year of one's birth, to determine their supposed influence on one's life, future, etc.."

Source:
the definition of numerology

The study of numbers in the Bible (Biblical numerics) is not for the purpose of figuring out the future or to influence your life or anything silly like that. The numbers in God's Word primarily seek to give glory to God and His Word. It is yet another way of showing us that the Bible is divine in origin. It also shows us that there are certain meanings to these numbers in the Bible; But these meanings do not by any means replace a normal reading of the Bible in any way; And nor should these numbers be used in worship or anything like that. The numbers have meaning (which glorifies God's Word). For example: You cannot deny the truth of the number 40. Noah was in the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights while it was raining. In a way it was like a test or trial. It was really an intense storm. Yet, we also know Jesus was be to be tested (like in a trial) in the wilderness (desert) for 40 days and 40 nights. So the number 40 is expressing the truth of a test or trial. To deny this is to deny the truth of the Bible itself.

This is not a real law.

I know it is not a law. But I know God knew that Bible chapters and verse numbers would play an important part in God's Word in the future (i.e. our day). How so? A Christian can say, "John three sixteen" to another believer who has a basic study of God's Word and they will know what they are talking about.

The Scriptures say,

"I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom," (Ecclesiastes 7:25)
"Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account..." (Ecclesiastes 7:27).

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (Revelation 13:18).

Here we see two testimonies in Scripture (saying the same thing):
Wisdom is to count things.

Now, what are the odds of the number 666 in Revelation 13 (that talks about wisdom and counting numbers) also appearing in Ecclesiastes 7 (with it being the 666th chapter)?

The Bible wants us to have wisdom or understanding by counting a particular number (Which is the mark of the beast). If one is to do so here, then one can do so at another time for another number in the Bible. Of course, this is not the sole and only way to gain wisdom of course.

But between these two chapters we see several things in common:

#1. Counting numbers as a part of wisdom.
#2. The number 666.

Coincidence? If you believe in such things.

Oh, and this is not the only amazing thing revealed in regards to the numbers in the Bible, either. There is so much more that it would blow your mind. For what purpose? To see the future? No. To show you yet another piece of evidence that God's Word is divine in origin.

Who decides how the Biblical books get ordered? Several groups have ordered them differently.

Most Bibles are ordered in the way we are familar with. So there is no need to try and seek out some other method, unless one feels guided to read in a different way by the Lord of course.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

you are interpreting this by superimposing western culture.

Show me in the Bible. If not, then it does not exist.
For history is written by the victors.
And the Bible says, "Let God be true, and every human being a liar." (Romans 3:4).
For even the Jews at one time had followed a false pharisee religion back in the times of Jesus (Which is evident by looking at Jesus and Paul's many rebukes of the Pharisees and their beliefs).

In an honor/shame culture a son dishonoring his father is a serious offense. In an honor/shame culture after a father has been shamed it is the obligation of the sons (remaining) to restore their father's honor without giving him more shame. In a honor/shame culture cursing the eldest son puts shame on not the father and his household but all his generations to come. Remember the 5th commandment or does this too need to be explained with a sexual sin?

God's Word says in the Old Testament, that if a son was disobedient and a drunkard, etc. they could be stoned to death. I get that it was serious to be disobedient to one's father. But to condemn a child (with a curse) and his descendants (which included a command for them to die) for a father's minor transgression is not what God's Word teaches unless you can show me a verse that says otherwise.

...to you these are not warranted offences and don't make sense so you try and rationalize them but in ancient cultures they make complete sense and need no further explanation.

God's Word is my authority and not reports from men about their culture that could be false or inaccurate.

You further try and make you point by saying God cursed Canaan, the problem is the text only says Noah did the cursing so let's just stick to what the text says.

We see God telling the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites later on. Coincidence? I think not. Even in Leviticus 18, we see the Canaanites mentioned and then the mention of the sin of incest. Again, coincidence? If you believe in such things.


...

 

[Apex]

Most Bibles are ordered in the way we are familar with. So there is no need to try and seek out some other method, unless one feels guided to read in a different way by the Lord of course.

The Jews use a slightly different order. Jesus even mentioned it Luke 24:44. Our English Bibles don't follow this same order. Also, what about chronological Bibles? Job is the oldest written Scripture, before Genesis was penned. Mark was written before Matthew. The list goes on...are you telling me God inspired the ordering of the English Bible?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Jews use a slightly different order. Jesus even mentioned it Luke 24:44. Our English Bibles don't follow this same order.

We are also not under the Old Covenant anymore and the New Testament Scriptures did not exist as a whole at that time yet.

Also, what about chronological Bibles? Job is the oldest written Scripture, before Genesis was penned.

Yet, in order of events chronologically, Genesis takes place before Job.
But as I said, if a person is led to read the Bible this way, there is nothing stopping them.

Mark was written before Matthew. The list goes on...are you telling me God inspired the ordering of the English Bible?

Yes. I believe that to be the case because English is the world language; Just as Latin and Greek were once the world languages. I believe God preserved His Word through out time in these languages. God's Word says His Word is perfect. If there is no perfect Word for our day, then God's Word would not be telling the truth, and I do not believe that. For the Scriptures say it is impossible for God to lie.

Others simply have a lack of faith in God's Word that this is so.
For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.


...

 

[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.

They were about a place; already established as Noah's tent. Outside then Inside!

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.

Correct. I trust the Word of God. You trust metaphors, it's your prerogative to do so.

Also, you never really answered my question:

Correct

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

I don't find that knowledge in Scripture.
The "WHY" is your interest, not mine.
If you can not find that knowledge in Scripture...
Why don't you ask God, who knows all things?

[QUOTE}Yes, I want you to THINK and see if you can make sense out of what God's Word is saying here.[/QUOTE]

You want me to speculate. I am not interested in speculating.

You cannot answer my questions because it is impossible for you and others to simply do so.

You can not answer your own questions without speculating.
I am more interested in what is true, than speculations.

God does not want us to read Scripture based on an interpretation that makes 0% sense.

God wants you to rely on Him! Not speculation. Not your mind. Not philosophies.
Not me. But, Him!

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."

Correct. So why do you continue to attempt to interpret Scripture?

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.

I am not the one pushing a man's interpretation, you are.
I am not the one speaking of Noah's wife being impregnated by Noah's son, neither is Scripture, but you are.

I agree, you value how the world operates. Scripture should have notified you, the world's ways are corrupt.

Yes, I already stated before within this thread that the sheet represents Jesus Christ.

I have made no comment to such post concerning that.

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).

That's funny.
Why doesn't it appear, as I said it is? Why do make up nonsense about that?
What makes you believe your interest and wondering, is my obligation to give you answers, that are not in Scripture?

I am saying you are assuming that Noah's sons were not invited into Noah's tent.

I assumed nothing. I said nothing in Scripture speaks about that, which is a fact, not an assumption!

You are assuming that the sons needed to be invited (based on what you said in a prior post).

Stating, nothing in scripture speaks about that, is not assuming anything!

It is true. You did not say Ham was ashamed. But you did say Noah was ashamed.

No, I did not.

For you said, I quote:

"Ham seeing his father naked was not a crime. It was a SHAME unto Noah.
SBC.​

[/QUOTE]

​

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.

Bully tactics and presumptions are unbecoming you.

I have no obligation to engage in foolish questions.

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.

More speculations. More accusations.

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

I am not subject to your "worldly reality", your "mindful speculations", your "mindful logical conclusions" !

or truth.

False testimony again.

You are believing words on a page

Yep. My choice to believe what is written, regardless if you like it or not!

based on your own code key of interpretation instead of allowing the Bible to interpret things for you.

More false testimony.

It's why you are kicking against the truths in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11.

False. I have said NOTHING whatsoever against Scripture.

Do you have a problem with comprehension? I am not in contention with Scripture.

Clearly I have told you; it is your views and ideas I do not agree with.

But it is written!

I am content with the words written in Scripture. I am not content with your words.

Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 is your code key to decipher the story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9!

No. But you have decided it is "your code key to decipher".

I'll stick with what Scripture actually teaches to understand Scripture; which has nothing to do with some "fantasy code key".

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.

Actually, I stated it was "speculative". Then realized you were attempting to induce an argument based on "speculations", so I stopped answering your foolish questions.

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

Actually, if there was a question that truly mattered; I'm sure it got all muddled in between your speaking for me and your false accusations against me, and ignored your questions.

Your reposting them does not help me in any way to see how your view is true.

My view is what scripture says is sufficient to believe. It does not affect me if you are not in agreement with scripture. That only affects you.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Absolutely. You have repeatedly said what you believe and why, and repeatedly I have said I disagree, and why.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[DamianWarS]

Show me in the Bible. If not, then it does not exist.
For history is written by the victors.
And the Bible says, "Let God be true, and every human being a liar." (Romans 3:4).
For even the Jews at one time had followed a false pharisee religion back in the times of Jesus (Which is evident by looking at Jesus and Paul's many rebukes of the Pharisees and their beliefs).

God's Word says in the Old Testament, that if a son was disobedient and a drunkard, etc. they could be stoned to death. I get that it was serious to be disobedient to one's father. But to condemn a child (with a curse) and his descendants (which included a command for them to die) for a father's minor transgression is not what God's Word teaches unless you can show me a verse that says otherwise.

God's Word is my authority and not reports from men about their culture that could be false or inaccurate.

We see God telling the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites later on. Coincidence? I think not. Even in Leviticus 18, we see the Canaanites mentioned and then the mention of the sin of incest. Again, coincidence? If you believe in such things.

...

So you condemn interpretation through a cultural context of an honor/shame system while praising your own interpretation through a cultural idiom. This is classic kettle calling the pot black and it disturbs me that you don't recognize this not to mention shows me how this conversation is going to continue.

Regardless, both are scripturally founded but require a contextual interpretation, and therein lies the problem, which is the correct context? Is this a classic honor/shame event or it an underlying euphemism that exposes insestual relations with Ham and his mother? Well to start, this most definitely is an honor/shame event, but does it go to the level you are suggesting? You suggest it does and it is biblical supported through the reading of Lev 18 but does Lev 18 describe what is happening in Gen 9?

Lev 18 speaks of the act of uncovering the nakedness of a relative and this a euphemism for sexual relations, the uncovering shows intent of a sexual act which is important. In Gen 9 Ham does not uncover the nakedness of his Father as it says in v21 "[Noah] drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent." then immediately following this in v22 it says "Ham...saw the nakedness of his father..." If you read it the words are careful and no one explicitly is uncovering the nakedness which suggest there is no sexual intent in this event.

If it said "Noah uncovered his nakedness" then the text can point to him having sex with his wife. If "Ham uncovered his nakedness" than it can point to Ham having sex with his mother but neither is true and the text is not about the intent to uncover nakedness.

Most definitely Lev 18 is about proper sexual conduct with relatives through the euphemism "uncover the nakedness" but the words alone do not demand this behaviour. Hebrew is a very concrete language and uses concrete words to describe an array of abstracts and this is an example. "Nakedness" actually means being naked and it is used that way in the bible but it also can mean shame that is felt when you're naked or it can mean something exposed or a pouring out, and as Lev 18 shows the intent to uncover someone's nakedness is the intent for a sexual act but if there is no intent then there is no reason to interpret the nakedness as a sexual act. Gen 9 does not show intent to uncover and actually is carefully worded to avoid this language.

This is a classic honor/shame event and all of it makes sense in an honor/shame context, even the curse on the Ham's son because by cursing Canaan Noah is cursing Ham's honour that he took away from Noah; Noah is shaming Ham because Ham dishonored him. We westerners think this isn't fair and is too heavy of punishment for such a silly thing. Noah and his family did not live in an abstract 21st century western culture so we should not treat him like he did. Dishonor to the family patriarch is a serious offence and Ham was at fault in his actions and Noah's reaction is justifiable under this system even if we don't think it is.

 

[SBC]

So you condemn interpretation through a cultural context of an honor/shame system while praising your own interpretation through a cultural idiom. This is classic kettle calling the pot black and it disturbs me that you don't recognize this not to mention shows me how this conversation is going to continue.

Regardless, both are scripturally founded but require a contextual interpretation, and therein lies the problem, which is the correct context? Is this a classic honor/shame event or it an underlying euphemism that exposes insestual relations with Ham and his mother? Well to start, this most definitely is an honor/shame event, but does it go to the level you are suggesting? You suggest it does and it is biblical supported through the reading of Lev 18 but does Lev 18 describe what is happening in Gen 9?

Lev 18 speaks of the act of uncovering the nakedness of a relative and this a euphemism for sexual relations, the uncovering shows intent of a sexual act which is important. In Gen 9 Ham does not uncover the nakedness of his Father as it says in v21 "[Noah] drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent." then immediately following this in v22 it says "Ham...saw the nakedness of his father..." If you read it the words are careful and no one explicitly is uncovering the nakedness which suggest there is no sexual intent in this event.

If it said "Noah uncovered his nakedness" then the text can point to him having sex with his wife. If "Ham uncovered his nakedness" than it can point to Ham having sex with his mother but neither is true and the text is not about the intent to uncover nakedness.

Most definitely Lev 18 is about proper sexual conduct with relatives through the euphemism "uncover the nakedness" but the words alone do not demand this behaviour. Hebrew is a very concrete language and uses concrete words to describe an array of abstracts and this is an example. "Nakedness" actually means being naked and it is used that way in the bible but it also can mean shame that is felt when you're naked or it can mean something exposed or a pouring out, and as Lev 18 shows the intent to uncover someone's nakedness is the intent for a sexual act but if there is no intent then there is no reason interpret the nakedness as a sexual act. Gen 9 does not show intent to uncover and actually is carefully worded to avoid this language.

This is a classic honor/shame event and all of it makes sense in an honor/shame context, even the curse on the Ham's son because by cursing Canaan Noah is cursing Ham's honour that he took away from Noah; Noah is shaming Ham because Ham dishonored him. We westerners think this isn't fair and is too heavy of punishment for such a silly thing. Noah and his family did not live in an abstract 21st century western culture so we should not treat him like he did. Dishonor to the family patriarch is a serious offence and Ham was at fault in his actions and Noah's reaction is justifiable under this system even if we don't think it is.

Excellent!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They were about a place; already established as Noah's tent. Outside then Inside!




Correct. I trust the Word of God. You trust metaphors, it's your prerogative to do so.



Correct



I don't find that knowledge in Scripture.
The "WHY" is your interest, not mine.
If you can not find that knowledge in Scripture...
Why don't you ask God, who knows all things?

Yes, I want you to THINK and see if you can make sense out of what God's Word is saying here.

You want me to speculate. I am not interested in speculating.



You can not answer your own questions without speculating.
I am more interested in what is true, than speculations.



God wants you to rely on Him! Not speculation. Not your mind. Not philosophies.
Not me. But, Him!



Correct. So why do you continue to attempt to interpret Scripture?



I am not the one pushing a man's interpretation, you are.
I am not the one speaking of Noah's wife being impregnated by Noah's son, neither is Scripture, but you are.

I agree, you value how the world operates. Scripture should have notified you, the world's ways are corrupt.



I have made no comment to such post concerning that.



That's funny.
Why doesn't it appear, as I said it is? Why do make up nonsense about that?
What makes you believe your interest and wondering, is my obligation to give you answers, that are not in Scripture?



I assumed nothing. I said nothing in Scripture speaks about that, which is a fact, not an assumption!



Stating, nothing in scripture speaks about that, is not assuming anything!




No, I did not.

For you said, I quote:

"Ham seeing his father naked was not a crime. It was a SHAME unto Noah.
SBC.​

​

Bully tactics and presumptions are unbecoming you.

I have no obligation to engage in foolish questions.




More speculations. More accusations.




I am not subject to your "worldly reality", your "mindful speculations", your "mindful logical conclusions" !



False testimony again.




Yep. My choice to believe what is written, regardless if you like it or not!



More false testimony.



False. I have said NOTHING whatsoever against Scripture.

Do you have a problem with comprehension? I am not in contention with Scripture.

Clearly I have told you; it is your views and ideas I do not agree with.



I am content with the words written in Scripture. I am not content with your words.



No. But you have decided it is "your code key to decipher".

I'll stick with what Scripture actually teaches to understand Scripture; which has nothing to do with some "fantasy code key".



Actually, I stated it was "speculative". Then realized you were attempting to induce an argument based on "speculations", so I stopped answering your foolish questions.



Actually, if there was a question that truly mattered; I'm sure it got all muddled in between your speaking for me and your false accusations against me, and ignored your questions.



My view is what scripture says is sufficient to believe. It does not affect me if you are not in agreement with scripture. That only affects you.



Absolutely. You have repeatedly said what you believe and why, and repeatedly I have said I disagree, and why.

God Bless,
SBC

Well, I started to read through your reply to me and just stopped half way through.
You are not interested in:

(a) Any real world reality of how things actually work in the Genesis 9 Narrative.
(b) Explaining why the metaphorical phrase from Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 does not apply in Genesis 9.

You are just hitting the disagree button as you shout against me.
As if disagreeing really proves anything.
I will no longer read your posts here unless you can bring something substantial to the table with love and respect.

In any event, may the Lord's love and goodness shine upon you.
And may you please be well.



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So you condemn interpretation through a cultural context of an honor/shame system while praising your own interpretation through a cultural idiom. This is classic kettle calling the pot black and it disturbs me that you don't recognize this not to mention shows me how this conversation is going to continue.

Well, I just don't place the same stock or faith in man made documents from history as you do.
My authority is God's Word. That is what I build my faith upon.
For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Regardless, both are scripturally founded but require a contextual interpretation, and therein lies the problem, which is the correct context? Is this a classic honor/shame event or it an underlying euphemism that exposes insestual relations with Ham and his mother? Well to start, this most definitely is an honor/shame event, but does it go to the level you are suggesting? You suggest it does and it is biblical supported through the reading of Lev 18 but does Lev 18 describe what is happening in Gen 9?

Lev 18 speaks of the act of uncovering the nakedness of a relative and this a euphemism for sexual relations, the uncovering shows intent of a sexual act which is important. In Gen 9 Ham does not uncover the nakedness of his Father as it says in v21 "[Noah] drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent." then immediately following this in v22 it says "Ham...saw the nakedness of his father..." If you read it the words are careful and no one explicitly is uncovering the nakedness which suggest there is no sexual intent in this event.

The English word "saw" taken from Genesis 9:22 is the Hebrew word "רָאָה" (ra'ah) can also mean to "enjoy" something. We see four uses of the word "enjoy" used for this Hebrew word elsewhere in Scripture.

See Strong's number:

H7200.​

Also, if I was covered by a blanket, I can then uncover myself by taking the blanket off of me and you can then "SEE" what was hidden before. So to uncover something means to see what is covered. So...

See = To Uncover.

For to uncover something means to SEE what was once covered or hidden.

On top of that, the Bible uses the idiom "look on their nakedness" (i.e. to see their nakedness) as in reference to sexual relations involving drunkenness elswhere in the Scriptures.

Habakkuk 2:15 says,
"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!"

Habakkuk 2:15 Message Bible (MSG) says,
"Who do you think you are— inviting your neighbors to your drunken parties, Giving them too much to drink, roping them into your sexual orgies?"

For who today gets people drunk just so they can stare at their nakedness en masse?
Nobody. So Habakkuk 2:15 is clearly talking about how one gets their neighbor drunk so as to have sex with them. For it's what still happens within our world today.

But if we were to use the word "enjoy" for the Hebrew word "רָאָה" (ra'ah)" and go back and replace the word "saw" with "enjoyed" and then switch the words "his father's nakedness" for "his father's wife" according to Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11, then you will get a biblical explanation of what is really going on here.

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 [i.e. enjoyed. See H7200] the nakedness of his father [i.e. 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 the nakedness of their father [i.e. his father's wife]; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness [i.e. 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.

For you want it to be about Ham causing the sexual act in some way, but Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 gives us the real meaning behind the idiom that you are clearly ignoring.

It is just like in Revelation.

The seven heads are seven mountains (Revelation 17:9) which was an earlier description of the seven headed scarlet coloured beast in Revelation 17:3.
You can ignore the explantion of this, too; But it would not be wise to do so.

In other words, the Bible has to be read as a whole;
But you are not doing that.

If it said "Noah uncovered his nakedness" then the text can point to him having sex with his wife. If "Ham uncovered his nakedness" than it can point to Ham having sex with his mother but neither is true and the text is not about the intent to uncover nakedness.

The Bible is not written in such a way that you prefer. Those idioms also do not make sense in light of reading Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11.

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

"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." (Leviticus 20:11).

Two witnesses in Scripture above refute you here.

Most definitely Lev 18 is about proper sexual conduct with relatives through the euphemism "uncover the nakedness" but the words alone do not demand this behaviour. Hebrew is a very concrete language and uses concrete words to describe an array of abstracts and this is an example. "Nakedness" actually means being naked and it is used that way in the bible but it also can mean shame that is felt when you're naked or it can mean something exposed or a pouring out, and as Lev 18 shows the intent to uncover someone's nakedness is the intent for a sexual act but if there is no intent then there is no reason to interpret the nakedness as a sexual act. Gen 9 does not show intent to uncover and actually is carefully worded to avoid this language.

But your changing the meaning of the idiom in Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11.
Genesis 9 does not give us a clear indication within the context so as to say that this is solely a mental sexual act taking place here. The text does not say that nobody was physically touched in a sexual way.
On the contrary, the cursing of Canaan is the proof that something sexual has taken place here. For it makes no sense to curse a child for a minor sin of looking at one's own father in lust. We see nothing like this ever repeated elsewhere in the Bible.
But we DO see a repeat of of this event (a child sleeping with their parent involving drunkenness) in Genesis 19 when Lot slept with his two daughters (with him being drunk).
This is yet another witness in Scripture against you.

This is a classic honor/shame event and all of it makes sense in an honor/shame context, even the curse on the Ham's son because by cursing Canaan Noah is cursing Ham's honour that he took away from Noah; Noah is shaming Ham because Ham dishonored him. We westerners think this isn't fair and is too heavy of punishment for such a silly thing. Noah and his family did not live in an abstract 21st century western culture so we should not treat him like he did. Dishonor to the family patriarch is a serious offence and Ham was at fault in his actions and Noah's reaction is justifiable under this system even if we don't think it is.

But where you getting this line of thinking? Is it from a book or article you read?
Is it from the Jews?
You do realize that Jews (Pharisees) followed a false religion during the time of Jesus, right?
Why are you trusting sources that come from them if they rejected their Messiah?
Basically what I am trying to say is stick to God's Word (in which is a source you can really trust).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

1 Corinthians 5:1-2 says,

1 Cor 5:1 "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1 Cor 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you."​

Here we see that one of the Corinthians had slept with his father's wife (i.e. his mother).

1 Cor 5:6 "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1 Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1 Cor 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).​

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:13, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." This is the leaven of malice and wickedness (verse 8). Paul asks, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" (verse 6); Then Paul says, "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened" (verse 7).

Leaven is a type of yeast that would puff up bread.
Leaven is a type of "sin." It puffs up.

Paul says to the Corinthians in not putting away this wicked person, "And ye are puffed up," (1 Corinthians 5:2).

The yeast within alcoholic wine is ALSO a leaven.

For Leviticus 2:11 specifically states, "ye shall burn no leaven... in any offering of the LORD made by fire." And the drink offerings most of the time were made by fire (Which included the daily offerings: (Exodus 29:41 KJV) (Numbers 28:7, 8) the First fruits Feast of Weeks: (Leviticus 23:18 KJV) and the Feast of Trumpets: (Numbers 29:6 KJV)).

For again, leaven (yeast) is representative of sin within the Bible.
And alcoholic wine is made by the yeast activating with the sugars within the alcohol. Many times this yeast is naturally present as a powder like substance upon the skin of the grape; And sometimes it is not there in significant quantity due to rainy seasons and off many native grape populations for making fermented wine.

Leaven in wine is what can get you drunk.
So Paul is saying that cast out this sinful person who is justifying sin of sleeping with his own mother (leaven, sin, spiritual drunkenness) from among you.

So here again, we see in Scripture a person committing incest with their mother and a loose allusion to wine (leaven, drunkeness). In this case, it is spiritual drunkenness.

Revelation talks about how Mystery Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints and she has committed spiritual adultery. In other words, this all speaks way back to the beginning where we see Ham and Noah's wife commit incest (involving drunkenness) and Lot and his two daughers committing incest (involving drunkenness).


...

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think when people read this text, they will have the hardest time with this interpretation because of these words in verse 21,

"...and he [Noah] was uncovered within his tent" (Gen 9:21).

But they have to realize that he (Noah) more than likely got frisky with his wife because he was drunk. In fact, it is possible she even had a little wine, and possibly got drunk, too. In either case, Noah was passed out drunk and Ham took advantage of his own mother and Canaan was the result or offspring (By which Noah cursed).

So the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit together.


...

smh. If that is the moral of the story than why did his son sin against him and so much so that God put it in the Bible?

Gotta love your stories though man. Entertaining.

 

[4x4toy]

And how does a blanket remedy your problem . More ridiculous theory included was sodomy and even castration besides sex with his mother . And like I mentioned previous , I'll take Shem and Japheth's route even today and continue to cover Noah in his imo nothing sin . I also consider it a smear to Noah and his Wife and even Ham and I've kicked people out of my house for much less if they persist . That said , you believe what you want .

 

[ToBeLoved]

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 [i.e. enjoyed. See H7200] the nakedness of his father [i.e. 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 the nakedness of their father [i.e. his father's wife]; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness [i.e. 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.

So Ham got with Noah's wife? I hope that it's not his mother.

So why did the Bible make it a point of saying Noah was naked?

Why did the other two brothers raise a cloth and back into and give respect to not viewing Noah's nakedness?

How does this fit in with Ham and Noah's wife?

And how or why does it affect things that Noah was drunk?

Just so I can get the full value of your teaching and all that jazz.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

smh.

If you are saying, "smh" = "shakes my head"; The Bible says,

"I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads."
(Psalms 109:25).

If that is the moral of the story than why did his son sin against him and so much so that God put it in the Bible?

The Bible records all kinds of sins in the family.
We see a similar story of Ham sleeping with Noah's wife (involving drunkeness) in the story of Lot and his two daughters. Noah gets drunk and he does not wake up so as to stop Ham from sleeping with his wife. Lot gets drunk by his own two daughters and they sleep with him and he does not also perceive what is truly happening. The descendants from both of these incestous unions are destroyed later by God.

Gotta love your stories though man. Entertaining.

It is not my story. It's the Bible!


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And how does a blanket remedy your problem . More ridiculous theory included was sodomy and even castration besides sex with his mother . And like I mentioned previous , I'll take Shem and Japheth's route even today and continue to cover Noah in his imo nothing sin . I also consider it a smear to Noah and his Wife and even Ham and I've kicked people out of my house for much less if they persist . That said , you believe what you want .

It is not ridiculous! You merely cannot see what Scripture plainly says here.
Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11 clearly tells you point blank:

"his father's nakedness" = "his father's wife" in both verses.

Moses wrote the five books of the Torah. So he would have naturally used an idiom or terminology that was consistent (of which we see in Genesis 9).

As for my analogy of the blanket: Not sure how you do not understand it.
Let me use an another anology.
I put a coin under a cup on a table.
I uncover the coin by taking away the cup so that you can SEE the coin.
Uncover = to see.
It is simple. The Bible relates uncovered her nakedness to sexual relations in Leviticus.
The Bible also relates looking upon nakedness (involving drunkenness) as sex in Habakkuk 2:15.

Also, go to Blue Letter Bible and do a search on Genesis 9:22. Look up the Strong's word for the English word "saw" and you will see that the Hebrew word is also used in the Bible elsewhere under the English word "enjoy." So the word "saw" or to "see" can also mean to "enjoy." Ham enjoyed his father's nakedness (i.e. his wife - see Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11).

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So Ham got with Noah's wife? I hope that it's not his mother.

Yes, it is Ham's mother.
We see a similar thing in Genesis 19 but it involves a father and his two daughters (involving drunkenness).

So why did the Bible make it a point of saying Noah was naked?

Because it shows that Noah had intimate relations with his wife (showing that his wife is HIS nakedness).
However, the nakedness of the father was violated by Ham (afterwards).
Ham was more than likely trying to place his authority over his father.
We see Jacob's son, Rueben sleeping with his concubine.
We see Absalom sleeping with David's concubines in public as a means of declaring his authority when David was ran out of town. So the nakedness of Noah (his wife) is being taken from him. What he just indulged in as a part of marriage is now soiled and corrupted by his own son; And Canaan was the result.
But Ham's plan to have authority over his father backfired.
Noah cursed the offspring of this incestous union between Ham and Noah's wife; And Noah said that the descendants of Canaan will serve the descendants of his two brothers instead.

Why did the other two brothers raise a cloth and back into and give respect to not viewing Noah's nakedness?

This is talking about Noah's wife. Replace the words "father's nakedness" for "his wife's nakedness" according to the explained idiom used in Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11.

The two brothers are covering up their mother's nakedness from her being abused by their own son Ham, before their father wakes up. Maybe she is passed out drunk still or in shock of what has happened; Or maybe Ham took her clothes away and or coverings away from her. So she needs to be covered before Noah wakes up.

How does this fit in with Ham and Noah's wife?

See above.

And how or why does it affect things that Noah was drunk?

Just so I can get the full value of your teaching and all that jazz.

Noah was too drunk (unaware) so as to protect his wife. He could not wake up so as to stop his son Ham from violating her. Just as Lot was too drunk to perceive his own two daughters taking advantage of him.


...

 

[SBC]

You do realize that Jews (Pharisees) followed a false religion during the time of Jesus, right?

...

Not True. Jesus Himself directed the people to do what they say!

Matt 23
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not True. Jesus Himself directed the people to do what they say!

Matt 23
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

God Bless,
SBC

You are having a real problem in understanding in what I said.
I said the Pharisees believed in a false religion.
Jesus criticized them for not obeying the Word of God which is even evident in the verse you quote to me.
I bolded the portion of words in red with that verse for you to see it.

May God bless you.


...