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).
You said:
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:
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.
You said:
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.
You said:
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.
You said:
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).
...