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

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyways, I also believe God's Word emphasizes the fact that Canaan was Ham’s son so as not to confuse him with being a son of Noah. Based on the metaphorical phrases used from Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:17 (i.e. father's nakedness = wife's nakedness), Genesis 9:18 emphasis on Canaan being the father of Ham among the sons of Noah implies that Noah's wife bore Canaan.

"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan." (Genesis 9:18).



...

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed for discussing/flaming each other

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In a thorough presentation of the case for the 'Maternal Incest', Bergsma and Hahn write:

The currently popular paternal-incest interpretation has much to commend it, but in almost every case the evidence marshaled for this view actually better suits the 'Maternal Incest' theory. The heuristic strengths of the maternal-incest interpretation are manifold: it explains

(1) the gravity of Ham’s sin,
(2) the rationale for the cursing of Canaan rather than Ham,
(3) Ham’s motivation for committing the offense,
(4) the repetition of “Ham, the father of Canaan,” and
(5) the sexually charged language of the passage. In addition, biblical and ancient Near Eastern analogues for Ham’s crime are easy to find, and the related passages of the Pentateuch fit together more elegantly on this interpretation (pp. 39-40)​

Source:
noahs-flood

 

[Bible Highlighter]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed for discussing/flaming each other

Thank you.


....

 

[DamianWarS]

Here is the verse:

“And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.” (Leviticus 20:17).​

Verse 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.” (Leviticus 20:11).​

This to me is clear.

For if you are going to try and change Leviticus 21:17 in what it says about "see nakedness" as relating to "uncover nakedness" (Which then points us to the incest laws in Leviticus 18) there really is nothing further left to discuss. You are never going to see what I desire to show you with God's Word because you have a belief that overrides what God's Word plainly says. Many translations refer to Leviticus 21:17 as sex. Yet, you were making a big deal before about how no translators agreed with me. Besides, it is obvious that it is talking about sex because it uses the words "uncover nakedeness" from Leviticus 18 that is clearly talking about sex. But see whatever you want to see. We are done talking on this issue, my friend.

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


...

I can appreciate your perspective and fully understand it. A cursory reading of the Gen 9 text with Lev 18 and 20 does seem to have a connection with the words you are suggesting. However it's a deeper study of the words used in Gen 9 that seem to lead it away, IMO.

Again I am not changing anything and I have never suggested to change the text even within a translation, you keep accusing me of changing the text and I don't appreciate this when I in fact value the words of the text and try and uphold them. There are two aspects of this which is the act to uncover and the act to see both possibly referring to a sexual aspect.

the text, without changing anything, in Lev 18:10 using the NASB (since it's a very literal translation) says "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness."

the verb used here is "uncover" and the object is "nakedness of your father’s wife" or "father’s nakedness". The command is to "not" do the action to the object. The action is uncover the object is your father's nakedness. So it is clear "do not uncover..."

Let's compare this with Gen 9:21-21 "[Noah] drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside."

The NASB says "uncovered himself" where other translations say "lay uncovered" the word in question is וַיִּתְגַּל which is an Imperfect tense (was) 3rd person Masculine Singular (he) of the verb "uncover" (H1540) so literally "he was uncovered" Where was he in his tent, was he lying down? Was he alone? The text is not clear and translations are inferring this but Ham didn't uncover him as he was already in a state of being uncovered before he entered the tent and the text is clear with this. So according to the command of Lev 18:8 Ham is not guilty of it because he did not uncover his father's nakedness.

Lev 20:11 and 17 using again the NASB and not changing anything says:

v11: If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

v17: If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.

v11 uses the euphemism "lies with his father's wife..." to indicate sexual relations and the hebrew reflects this as well. What the text says is if a person essentially have sex with their father's wife they are guilty of the act of "uncovering" of Lev 18:8. Now as already detailed in Gen 9 Ham does not uncover his Father's nakedness so by the language used in the text he is not guilty of Lev 18:8 or Lev 20:11 since he does not uncover. v11 invokes the uncovering as the sin and the two must agree with each other but Gen 9 is clear Ham does not uncover his Father's nakedness so does not agree there is a sexual sin as one must mirror the other.

v17 is your strongest argument even though with the other 2 verses the Gen 9 text leads you away from sexual activity v17 could arouse suspicion again because of the word "see" which Ham clearly does in Gen 9. v17 is quite specific using 2 mutual parties of brother and sister. This is not a like scenario in Gen 9 as the "seeing" is only one way. The word "see" itself does not demand a sexual reference. As mentioned in an earlier post the word "see" (H2700) and "nakedness" (H6172) occurs in other areas of the bible together and can suggestion exposure, vulnerability and shame without suggesting sexual relations. v17 concludes like v11 that by this "seeing" you are guilty of "uncovering" (back to Lev 18) And again this is where the dominate issue is as the text in Gen 9 goes out of its way to say Noah was already uncovered before Ham entered the tent absolving Ham from the sin of uncovering.

Ham is not guilty of Lev 18:8, 20:11 or 20:17 because the text is clear Ham may have "saw" but he did not uncover. Now this word "see" is just a word and it doesn't demand a sexual reference and typically just means "to see". in the Gen 9 case it would seem to be so and Ham just saw and the key is because he did not uncover. So what was his crime? Ham dishonored his father and his brothers honored him. The result is Noah curses not Ham but his son Canaan and by doing so Noah brings same upon Ham's whole household and generations to come. All of this makes sense in an honor/shame culture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I can appreciate your perspective and fully understand it. A cursory reading of the Gen 9 text with Lev 18 and 20 does seem to have a connection with the words you are suggesting. However it's a deeper study of the words used in Gen 9 that seem to lead it away, IMO.

Again I am not changing anything and I have never suggested to change the text even within a translation, you keep accusing me of changing the text and I don't appreciate this when I in fact value the words of the text and try and uphold them. There are two aspects of this which is the act to uncover and the act to see both possibly referring to a sexual aspect.

the text, without changing anything, in Lev 18:10 using the NASB (since it's a very literal translation) says "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness."

the verb used here is "uncover" and the object is "nakedness of your father’s wife" or "father’s nakedness". The command is to "not" do the action to the object. The action is uncover the object is your father's nakedness. So it is clear "do not uncover..."

Let's compare this with Gen 9:21-21 "[Noah] drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside."

The NASB says "uncovered himself" where other translations say "lay uncovered" the word in question is וַיִּתְגַּל which is an Imperfect tense (was) 3rd person Masculine Singular (he) of the verb "uncover" (H1540) so literally "he was uncovered" Where was he in his tent, was he lying down? Was he alone? The text is not clear and translations are inferring this but Ham didn't uncover him as he was already in a state of being uncovered before he entered the tent and the text is clear with this. So according to the command of Lev 18:8 Ham is not guilty of it because he did not uncover his father's nakedness.

Lev 20:11 and 17 using again the NASB and not changing anything says:

v11: If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

v17: If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.

v11 uses the euphemism "lies with his father's wife..." to indicate sexual relations and the hebrew reflects this as well. What the text says is if a person essentially have sex with their father's wife they are guilty of the act of "uncovering" of Lev 18:8. Now as already detailed in Gen 9 Ham does not uncover his Father's nakedness so by the language used in the text he is not guilty of Lev 18:8 or Lev 20:11 since he does not uncover. v11 invokes the uncovering as the sin and the two must agree with each other but Gen 9 is clear Ham does not uncover his Father's nakedness so does not agree there is a sexual sin as one must mirror the other.

v17 is your strongest argument even though with the other 2 verses the Gen 9 text leads you away from sexual activity v17 could arouse suspicion again because of the word "see" which Ham clearly does in Gen 9. v17 is quite specific using 2 mutual parties of brother and sister. This is not a like scenario in Gen 9 as the "seeing" is only one way. The word "see" itself does not demand a sexual reference. As mentioned in an earlier post the word "see" (H2700) and "nakedness" (H6172) occurs in other areas of the bible together and can suggestion exposure, vulnerability and shame without suggesting sexual relations. v17 concludes like v11 that by this "seeing" you are guilty of "uncovering" (back to Lev 18) And again this is where the dominate issue is as the text in Gen 9 goes out of its way to say Noah was already uncovered before Ham entered the tent absolving Ham from the sin of uncovering.

Ham is not guilty of Lev 18:8, 20:11 or 20:17 because the text is clear Ham may have "saw" but he did not uncover. Now this word "see" is just a word and it doesn't demand a sexual reference and typically just means "to see". in the Gen 9 case it would seem to be so and Ham just saw and the key is because he did not uncover. So what was his crime? Ham dishonored his father and his brothers honored him. The result is Noah curses not Ham but his son Canaan and by doing so Noah brings same upon Ham's whole household and generations to come. All of this makes sense in an honor/shame culture.

"And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly." (Deuteronomy 27:8).


...

 

[DamianWarS]

"And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly." (Deuteronomy 27:8).


...

superimposing scripture out of context doesn't help this conversation nor does it help your credibility. Deuteronomy 27:8 is an instruction to clearly inscribe the law on the altar that was instructed to be made. If you are suggesting that this verse means the same for Lev 18, 20 and Gen 9 then your are making it a pretext to justify something it seems you are either unable or unwilling to defend further, certainly Deuteronomy 27:8 has nothing to do with it.

I still agree the text uses words that are easily understood for the original audience in the original language but not necessarily for us. We are going to run into difficulty in understanding the text if we try and do so by superimposing the wrong understanding over it and so we must interpret these texts based on the proper context. You try and do this with seeing the Gen 9 text as idiom that is revealed in Lev 18. The attempt is laudable but I see the Gen 9 account as actually declaring it isn't the sin of uncovering by how it uses the verb in the context. Ham doesn't uncover and this is a valid point to make and shouldn't be ignored. If the text is trying to show that Ham didn't uncover the nakedness it is absolving Ham from the sin of uncovering as mention in Lev 18, if it doesn't we must reconcile why the text explicitly tell us Ham didn't uncover Noah

I believe the text is deliberately showing Ham was not guilty of the sin of uncovering and it goes out of its way to say this the latter interpretation of Ham being guilty of uncovering by "seeing" goes against what the text plainly tells us that Ham did not uncover Noah's nakedness. You keep going in circles and accusing me of changing the text and sticking to God's word but I have been very deliberate in keeping the original text and not reordering or changing words to suit my purpose or using verses out of context. Your credibility and consistency in these conversations has been lacking and it's causing me to question your motives.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

superimposing scripture out of context doesn't help this conversation nor does it help your credibility. Deuteronomy 27:8 is an instruction to clearly inscribe the law on the altar that was instructed to be made. If you are suggesting that this verse means the same for Lev 18, 20 and Gen 9 then your are making it a pretext to justify something it seems you are either unable or unwilling to defend further, certainly Deuteronomy 27:8 has nothing to do with it.

I still agree the text uses words that are easily understood for the original audience in the original language but not necessarily for us. We are going to run into difficulty in understanding the text if we try and do so by superimposing the wrong understanding over it and so we must interpret these texts based on the proper context. You try and do this with seeing the Gen 9 text as idiom that is revealed in Lev 18. The attempt is laudable but I see the Gen 9 account as actually declaring it isn't the sin of uncovering by how it uses the verb in the context. Ham doesn't uncover and this is a valid point to make and shouldn't be ignored. If the text is trying to show that Ham didn't uncover the nakedness it is absolving Ham from the sin of uncovering as mention in Lev 18, if it doesn't we must reconcile why the text explicitly tell us Ham didn't uncover Noah

I believe the text is deliberately showing Ham was not guilty of the sin of uncovering and it goes out of its way to say this the latter interpretation of Ham being guilty of uncovering by "seeing" goes against what the text plainly tells us that Ham did not uncover Noah's nakedness. You keep going in circles and accusing me of changing the text and sticking to God's word but I have been very deliberate in keeping the original text and not reordering or changing words to suit my purpose or using verses out of context. Your credibility and consistency in these conversations has been lacking and it's causing me to question your motives.

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." (Psalms 119:130).

While the normal rule of reading Scripture should be literally, the problem is that the wooden literalist interpretation on the Story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9 (that ignores the Bible's metaphors given elsewhere) gives no understanding and it is not simple. Nothing in the story makes any sense whatsover and we see no repeat of that event elswhere in Scripture. Whereas, in the proper reading of this story (using the metaphorical language in Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:17) we see a connection of perfect harmony between the idioms used in Leviticus and Genesis 9 and a proper understanding of why Canaan was truly cursed. For this story is easily paralleld in the Story of Lot and his two daughters.

(1) Both Noah & Lot get drunk after a great miraculous Judgment from God.
(2) Both Noah & Lot are asleep & they do not perceive an incident of incest under their nose.
(3) Both Noah & Lot are involved with incest regarding two close family members.
(4) Both Noah & Lot's wives no longer give children to their husband after a great Judgment.
(5) Both Noah & Lot's wives are judged by God in some way as the result of a sin that befalls them (either directly or indirectly).​

The story also continues on through the pages of Scripture with both sets of offspring being destroyed later in Exodus by God's people. In fact, Leviticus 18 talks about the Canaanites (Canaan) along with the laws that forbid incest. On top of that, we see Ham's motivation as to why he slept with his father's wife elsewhere in Scripture. Ham desire was to usurp his father's natural authority that he has over his wife in marriage. For 1 Corinthians 7:4 says, "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."

Elsewhere in Scripture, we see a son trying to usurp his father's authority by sleeping with their sex partner. So like with Ham taking Noah's wife:

(1) Reuben sleep's with his father's concubine (i.e. Jacob's concubine).
(2) Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines in public (i.e. David's concubines).​

Back in our story in Genesis 9, we learn that Ham's plan of trying to usurp his father's authority backfires. For Noah places a curse on Canaan (and his descendants) and they will be under authority to Shem and Japheth by Canaan serving them. But with the literal wooden reading of the Story of Noah and Ham, we are left scratching our heads to people who do not seem real and are doing things that are completely irrational. We also see nothing of this irrational story repeated within the pages of Scripture elsewhere giving us understanding. The wooden literal version of the Story of Noah and Ham is complex and not simple and it gives us no understanding.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is a stumper for those who take the wooden literalistic view on the Story of Noah and Ham:

Why does Noah only curse Canaan and not Ham's other children for Ham's transgression? What makes Canaan so special so as to be cursed and not the other children of Ham?



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Another interesting fact to consider,

• The terminology of “uncovering nakedness” is not used when the Pentateuch condemns homosexual intercourse (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13).

Source:
The Sin of Ham and the Curse of Canaan

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Wooden Literalist View on the Story of Noah and Ham is one of the reasons why athiests make fun of Christianity. They mock the non-sense of such a story or narrative because it is simply put... non-sense.

Here is what one atheist says about the Wooden Literalist Story Version of Noah and Ham:

"...God doesn’t like it when a son sees his father naked, even when it’s the father’s fault. Although if that is the case, then the punishment is more than just excessive, it’s psychotic."​

Source:
Noah's Drunkenness
(Note: This source is not biblical; It is an atheist website that attempts to attack the Bible. The link is merely provided as a source of what an atheist said).


...

 

[DamianWarS]

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." (Psalms 119:130).

While the normal rule of reading Scripture should be literally, the problem is that the wooden literalist interpretation on the Story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9 (that ignores the Bible's metaphors given elsewhere) gives no understanding and it is not simple. Nothing in the story makes any sense whatsover and we see no repeat of that event elswhere in Scripture. Whereas, in the proper reading of this story (using the metaphorical language in Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:17) we see a connection of perfect harmony between the idioms used in Leviticus and Genesis 9 and a proper understanding of why Canaan was truly cursed. For this story is easily paralleld in the Story of Lot and his two daughters.

(1) Both Noah & Lot get drunk after a great miraculous Judgment from God.
(2) Both Noah & Lot are asleep & they do not perceive an incident of incest under their nose.
(3) Both Noah & Lot are involved with incest regarding two close family members.
(4) Both Noah & Lot's wives no longer give children to their husband after a great Judgment.
(5) Both Noah & Lot's wives are judged by God in some way as the result of a sin that befalls them (either directly or indirectly).
The story also continues on through the pages of Scripture with both sets of offspring being destroyed later in Exodus by God's people. In fact, Leviticus 18 talks about the Canaanites (Canaan) along with the laws that forbid incest. On top of that, we see Ham's motivation as to why he slept with his father's wife elsewhere in Scripture. Ham desire was to usurp his father's natural authority that he has over his wife in marriage. For 1 Corinthians 7:4 says, "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."

wooden literalism is stiff and void of meaning and explanation it just simply takes the text as is without need to go further. I do not do this and in fact use the same euphemism "uncover" to show the text is deliberately moving away from sexual relations I also show how it is a classic event in a honor/shame system; this is not wooden literalism.

Back in our story in Genesis 9, we learn that Ham's plan of trying to usurp his father's authority backfires. For Noah places a curse on Canaan (and his descendants) and they will be under authority to Shem and Japheth by Canaan serving them. But with the literal wooden reading of the Story of Noah and Ham, we are left scratching our heads to people who do not seem real and are doing things that are completely irrational. We also see nothing of this irrational story repeated within the pages of Scripture elsewhere giving us understanding. The wooden literal version of the Story of Noah and Ham is complex and not simple and it gives us no understanding.

Here is a stumper for those who take the wooden literalistic view on the Story of Noah and Ham:

Why does Noah only curse Canaan and not Ham's other children for Ham's transgression? What makes Canaan so special so as to be cursed and not the other children of Ham?

what stumper? i have countless times repeated this is a classic example of a honor/shame event and not one part of it is unusual. "uncover" and "nakedness" are words used to describe sexual relations but even before that they honor/shame words and the underpinning of both texts. Ham dishonored his father and this is something taken seriously in a honor/shame system and his brothers restored his honor. uncover/cover, naked/clothed, shame/honor, this reeks of an honor/shame system. You keep repeating this is unexplainable and refuse to comment on it further accusing me of getting some sort of corrupted man made opinion. Since the text shows us Ham did not uncover his father's nakedness the nakedness, be it literal or not is Noah's shame and it was Ham's responsibility to maintain the honor of his Father not put shame on him. Ham betrayed not just his Father but his family. So Noah in return cursed Ham's honor, his son. nothing is strange in the right context, it may not fit in our western mindset but it was never meant to.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

wooden literalism is stiff and void of meaning and explanation it just simply takes the text as is without need to go further. I do not do this and in fact use the same euphemism "uncover" to show the text is deliberately moving away from sexual relations I also show how it is a classic event in a honor/shame system; this is not wooden literalism.





what stumper? i have countless times repeated this is a classic example of a honor/shame event and not one part of it is unusual. "uncover" and "nakedness" are words used to describe sexual relations but even before that they honor/shame words and the underpinning of both texts. Ham dishonored his father and this is something taken seriously in a honor/shame system and his brothers restored his honor. uncover/cover, naked/clothed, shame/honor, this reeks of an honor/shame system. You keep repeating this is unexplainable and refuse to comment on it further accusing me of getting some sort of corrupted man made opinion. Since the text shows us Ham did not uncover his father's nakedness the nakedness, be it literal or not is Noah's shame and it was Ham's responsibility to maintain the honor of his Father not put shame on him. Ham betrayed not just his Father but his family. So Noah in return cursed Ham's honor, his son. nothing is strange in the right context, it may not fit in our western mindset but it was never meant to.

Well, I am talking about "Wooden Literalism" (at the expense of ignoring metaphor) only in regards to this specific story in Genesis 9 and it's related metaphors explained to us in Leviticus. I am not saying you are ignoring metaphors elsewhere in the Bible. Obviously you believe "lay", "slept", and "knew" relates to sex. But for some odd reason you do not think "uncover nakedness of the father" (as talking about the nakedness of the father's wife) and "see nakedness" (and it's relation to "uncover nakedness") in Leviticus are connected idioms for sexual relations (Especially when the idiom "see nakedness of the father" is used in Genesis 9).

Anyways, do you believe Ham had looked upon his father's nakedness or do you believe Ham sexually abused his father? Well, whatever view you choose, both are ridiculous concepts because Noah wakes up and instantly curses Canaan. This makes no sense because why doesn't Noah curse any other children of Ham? From the whole of Genesis 9, Canaan is singled out and mentioned several times. Why was Canaan to be cursed? Why was Canaan mentioned several times in Genesis 9?

Oh, and yes; You are reading the story with wooden literalism unless you subscribe to the Ham raped his own father theory. If you do subscribe to this theory, there is no mention in Leviticus of how homosexuality is related to the words "uncover nakedness."


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

.what stumper? i have countless times repeated this is a classic example of a honor/shame event and not one part of it is unusual. "uncover" and "nakedness" are words used to describe sexual relations but even before that they honor/shame words and the underpinning of both texts. Ham dishonored his father and this is something taken seriously in a honor/shame system and his brothers restored his honor. uncover/cover, naked/clothed, shame/honor, this reeks of an honor/shame system. You keep repeating this is unexplainable and refuse to comment on it further accusing me of getting some sort of corrupted man made opinion. Since the text shows us Ham did not uncover his father's nakedness the nakedness, be it literal or not is Noah's shame and it was Ham's responsibility to maintain the honor of his Father not put shame on him. Ham betrayed not just his Father but his family. So Noah in return cursed Ham's honor, his son. nothing is strange in the right context, it may not fit in our western mindset but it was never meant to.

No. My question is a stumper for you still because you are not explaining why only Canaan was singled out for the curse and not Ham's other sons. If things were as you say, then all of Ham's sons should have suffered a curse. But this is clearly not the case.


....

 

[DamianWarS]

No. My question is a stumper for you still because you are not explaining why only Canaan was singled out for the curse and not Ham's other sons. If things were as you say, then all of Ham's sons should have suffered a curse. But this is clearly not the case.


....

you infer too much from the text. The text does not tell us how many children Ham had at the time of the event. The text also shows us it's not Canaan personally that is cursed but rather his descendants. However since Canaan is listed last among Ham's sons in Gen 10 either he is considered the lessor of his sons (from the result of the curse) or he is the youngest suggesting his other sons were born during the Gen 9 event.

It doesn't matter, sons are the honor of the household and they continue the line of household and their greatness brings greatness on their family as well as their failure brings failure on the family. Cursing one son tarnishes the household but does not destroy it, Noah would be demonstrating restraint by choosing only one son rather than all of them and if Canaan is the youngest he chooses the lessor of all the sons which is not as big as deal.

The word "son" in hebrew is "ben" and it can also mean "tent panel" (beyt + nun) Hebrew is a very concrete language and it develops its abstracts (like son) from concretes. In ancient hebrew beyt is the pictograph of a home or tent and nun the pictograph of a sprouting seed. Together they make up the word for son abstractly meaning the seed of the home or the continuance of the home.

The Hebrews were a nomadic tribe and lived in tents. They had numerous panels that made up the tent and as one aged it would be replaced to keep the tent fully intact. Since only a small part of the tent is replaced at a time the tent is considered to live on forever thus the concept of the tent abstractly represents the generations of the family and the panels are the sons that continue the family line.

"Father" or "ab" in similar manner means "tent pole" (aleph + beyt) Aleph is the greatest symbol and in ancient hebrew it is the pictograph of an ox, its means power and strength and again beyt is the home or the tent. The tent pole holds the tent up and without it there is no tent and in the same way the Father holds the home or family together and this is the concept that forms the word for Father.

The Father holds the tent the sons complete the tent and continue it through the generations. If a generation or complete descendants of a son is cursed the tent is tarnished and the Father who holds the tent up is shamed. Cursing Ham in similar manner that Noah cursed Canaan would curse the entire tent structure which could be going perhaps too far or to harsh, cursing Canaan's descents marks the tent but does not destroy it.

There is nothing wrong with the logic of cursing one son. The curse still brings shame on the household, we may think its too harsh and Canaan doesn't deserve this but we don't operate in an ancient nomadic honor/shame culture. If Canaan is the youngest of Ham's son this only shows Noah demonstrating restraint and cursing what would be considered the lessor of all the sons.

In v24 of Gen 9 it says "...[Noah] knew what his youngest son had done to him..." "youngest" is not so respectful of word and it literally is "smallest", it can mean lessor, insignificant or unimportant. In Gen 7:13 and 6:9 the order of sons are "Shem, Ham and Japheth" suggesting Ham was the middle child and Japheth the youngest but their roles get flipped after the Gen 9 event and Ham is called the "lessor" son. This suggests that even Ham's inheritance would have been affected. In like manner according to Gen 10 since Canaan is listed last he is the "lessor" son... this may or may not mean he is the youngest but it could be he is counted among the least of Ham's son or it could mean Noah targeted the most unimportant of Ham's son in his punishment which would be considered not as harsh.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well, I am talking about "Wooden Literalism" (at the expense of ignoring metaphor) only in regards to this specific story in Genesis 9 and it's related metaphors explained to us in Leviticus. I am not saying you are ignoring metaphors elsewhere in the Bible. Obviously you believe "lay", "slept", and "knew" relates to sex. But for some odd reason you do not think "uncover nakedness of the father" (as talking about the nakedness of the father's wife) and "see nakedness" (and it's relation to "uncover nakedness") in Leviticus are connected idioms for sexual relations (Especially when the idiom "see nakedness of the father" is used in Genesis 9).

"uncover nakedness of the father" euphemistically refers to sexual relations however Ham does not uncover the nakedness of his father so your point is lost. Ham also "saw the nakedness of his father" which could suggest again sexual activity but since the text is clear Ham does not uncover the nakedness then the text already tells us this is not about sexual activity and absolves Ham from the sin of "uncovering". "seeing" euphemistically in the text is referring to looking at Noah's shame (nakedness = shame is a widely used concept in the OT). uncover/see must represent the same concept. If we want to avoid "wooden literalism" we need to accurately apply the idiom in how the text is revealing it. Since the text reveals Ham does not uncover and instead uncover represents Noah's shame what Ham "saw" was not a sexual opportunity but a shaming opportunity.

Anyways, do you believe Ham had looked upon his father's nakedness or do you believe Ham sexually abused his father? Well, whatever view you choose, both are ridiculous concepts because Noah wakes up and instantly curses Canaan. This makes no sense because why doesn't Noah curse any other children of Ham? From the whole of Genesis 9, Canaan is singled out and mentioned several times. Why was Canaan to be cursed? Why was Canaan mentioned several times in Genesis 9?

I don't believe any sexual activity is implied since the text is clear Ham does not uncover his father. Ham instead dishonors his father and his brothers honor him.

Oh, and yes; You are reading the story with wooden literalism unless you subscribe to the Ham raped his own father theory. If you do subscribe to this theory, there is no mention in Leviticus of how homosexuality is related to the words "uncover nakedness."

I use the same euphemism you use to show that Ham does not uncover his father so is not guilty of the sin so if I am wooden so are you, I also show why this event is based on a honor/shame system. This is not wooden literalism as I do not take the text "as is" but show how the text absolves Ham of the sin of uncovering using this idiom and why Noah had the right to curse Canaan and it not be unreasonable to do so

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think it is time to let it rest.
We are not going to change each other's minds.

May God bless you.


...

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread will remain closed due to continued personal comments and goading.
MOD HAT OFF​