Biblical Metaphors Shed Light on Ham's Sin in Noah's Tent.

[Bible Highlighter]

My takeaway ..Noah got drunk but love covers a multitude of sins ..His sons who loved him , covered Noah's nakedness ( whether it be Noah's wife or Noah ) That is the "meat " of the revelation. That is the shadow of Christ . And what was the spirit of Ham ? To publish Noah's nakedness . An accuser of the brethren and this after his father took him in the ark. It stems from self-righteousness .

I believe it was more than that involving Ham.
I believe it is very clear in what Ham did if one looks at the metaphors in Leviticus.

I merely believe the way I do based upon comparing Scripture with Scripture upon the guidance of God. The Metaphors is what let to my interpretation of the story. Nothing more and nothing less. I believe it is what God's Word says and I had no beef with any particular person in the Bible. I actually like Noah because he is a preacher of righteousness.
Despite Noah's sin of drunkenness, I believe he was forgiven.
Nowhere did I ever say he was eternally condemned.
As for Ham: It seems like he took a different path that was not right.
The Scriptures paint him in a bad light.
Also, my intention is not to even accuse Mrs. Noah, either.
Nowhere will you find anywhere me saying anything bad against her as if it was a matter of fact. We simply do not know what happened in regards to her involvement. I said before we do not know if she was forced upon by Ham or if she was involved. The Scriptures simply do not say.

Grace and peace brother .

PS ..Regarding William L Laws , A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life ..I would try to determine the Holiness of the Amazon reviewers lives as it compares to the life of William Law ...obviously he was in all probability more knowledgeable and spent more time in prayer and contemplation than today's reviewers . I do not think he had " hobbies " that took him away from time with Christ .

I will take it under advisement, but I am pretty busy.
I have other studies and things I am doing for the Lord at the moment.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's a good and convincing explanation.
It is of course quite shocking, but it is hard to know how that society worked.
Incest was normal in the early days of mankind.

Thank you.
I believe it's all the Lord who helped me to see it.
I hope the study helps to deepen your walk with the Lord and your study of God's Word.

 

[dqhall]

Thank you.
I believe it's all the Lord who helped me to see it.
I hope the study helps to deepen your walk with the Lord and your study of God's Word.

If the entire earth had only one family remaining after a legendary flood, there must have been incest and inbreeding along the way. Incest is forbidden in the law. Cross breeding done in the name of God may produce better offspring than inbreeding.

People who try to develop better corn plants had to cross pollinate. "Inbred plants developed from open-pollinated varieties of corn are not as vigorous or high yielding as the non-inbred plants of the open-pollinated varieties."
Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary

 

[JackRT]

Actually inbreeding can produce both inferior and superior offspring regardless of religious belief. In fact some royal dynasties (Egyptian and Hawaiian come to mind) practiced brother sister unions to continue the line. Of course they had to be willing to "discard" the inferior offspring.

 

[St. Helens]

Thank you.
I believe it is all God who led me to find out about this through an article.
From there I just did more digging in His Word and it has been a real eye opener.

I find your argument very sensible and well thought out. Thank you for posting this thread.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That wasn't the question. How would the text have to be written in order for it to mean to you that the actual nakedness of the father is being referenced?

Two reasons.

#1. The context.
#2. By two or three witnesses thy Word will be established.

Involving the context: The story of Noah and Ham is rendered non-sensical by a literal reading. No such scenario exists in the real world today.
Nobody looks at their father in the nude and boasts about it to their brothers. The brothers would be like, "Yeah, so what Ham. We all see our father when we were children." "What's your point?"
Also, nobody would curse their son for a minor infraction of looking at their own father in the nude. It is silly.

Let me give you an example: If Bahula (who studied English only from text books) came to this country and heard Rick and Bob talking about how their friend Joe had "bought the farm." Bahula would more than likely misunderstand them if they were talking about how Joe died. The Bible defines the phrase "nakedness of the father" or "father's nakedness" as meaning the "wife's nakedness." The context determines if the metaphors fit. When we examine the story in light of the Biblical metaphors, the story then makes sense and parallels other events in the Bible like with Lot and his two daughters.

BTW ~ Lot got drunk just like Noah; And his daughters took advantage of him and they became pregnant. So here we see drunkenness repeated along with siblings who carry on their own family line their own parents. It is also interesting to note that both the line of Canaan and the line of Lot's two daughters were wiped out. If that still is not enough for a person to get the clue, the very laws or commands that condemn incest in Leviticus mention the Canaantes.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I find your argument very sensible and well thought out. Thank you for posting this thread.

Thank you.

May God bless you greatly this fine day.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If the entire earth had only one family remaining after a legendary flood, there must have been incest and inbreeding along the way. Incest is forbidden in the law. Cross breeding done in the name of God may produce better offspring than inbreeding.

People who try to develop better corn plants had to cross pollinate. "Inbred plants developed from open-pollinated varieties of corn are not as vigorous or high yielding as the non-inbred plants of the open-pollinated varieties."
Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary

After the Fall: I believe it was always wrong to sleep with one's parents. As for sleeping with sisters and brothers, that needed to happen in order to populate the planet until the genetics could no longer handle such a thing (Whereby then God created the written law to prevent it from that point).

 

[SeventyOne]

Two reasons.

#1. The context.
#2. By two or three witnesses thy Word will be established.

Involving the context: The story of Noah and Ham is rendered non-sensical by a literal reading. No such scenario exists in the real world today.
Nobody looks at their father in the nude and boasts about it to their brothers. The brothers would be like, "Yeah, so what Ham. We all see our father when we were children." "What's your point?"
Also, nobody would curse their son for a minor infraction of looking at their own father in the nude. It is silly.

Let me give you an example: If Bahula (who studied English only from text books) came to this country and heard Rick and Bob talking about how their friend Joe had "bought the farm." Bahula would more than likely misunderstand them if they were talking about how Joe died. The Bible defines the phrase "nakedness of the father" or "father's nakedness" as meaning the "wife's nakedness." The context determines if the metaphors fit. When we examine the story in light of the Biblical metaphors, the story then makes sense and parallels other events in the Bible like with Lot and his two daughters.

BTW ~ Lot got drunk just like Noah; And his daughters took advantage of him and they became pregnant. So here we see drunkenness repeated along with siblings who carry on their own family line their own parents. It is also interesting to note that both the line of Canaan and the line of Lot's two daughters were wiped out. If that still is not enough for a person to get the clue, the very laws or commands that condemn incest in Leviticus mention the Canaantes.

The context is in the preceding verses:

Noah began to be a man of the soil
Noah planted a vineyard
Noah drank of the wine
Noah became drunk
Noah lay uncovered in his tent

There's nothing nonsensical about it. The context pertains to Noah. I find it amusing that you try to justify disregarding the plain text based on what you claim would happen in a similar circumstance today. First, this didn't take place in today's world. Second, even if it had, what kind of upbringing did you have where such a thing would be considered normal? Not in my house.

I know you've claimed you aren't making accusations, but that's exactly what you are doing by adding to the text what isn't there and claiming it as fact. Ham looked at his father naked then boasted about it to his brothers. It was an extremely disrespectful act on his part and is backed up when we are told in verse 24 that Noah was upset when he learned what Ham had done "to him".

Plus, you still haven't answered the question (again). So, I'll ask again. How would the text have to be written in order for it to mean to you that the actual nakedness of the father is being referenced? For clarity, I mean if you were reading the passage through, how would the wording have to change to get across the point to you that the subject was Noah.

 

[SeventyOne]

For those being caught up in the 'fathers nakedness' references in Leviticus as always pertaining to the mother, they do not. Shockingly, they also pertain to the father as well.

Leviticus 18:7 mentions both the nakedness of the father and the nakedness of the mother.

Leviticus 18:11 references the 'nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter'. If the nakedness of the father always pertained to the mother, this would read in a completely confusing way as 'The nakedness of thy mothers wife's daughter'

Leviticus 18:18-19 references both the 'the nakedness of thy father's sister' and the 'the nakedness of thy mother's sister'. Again, if the phrase 'nakedness of the father' always pertained to the wife/mother, these would be the same verses.

A case can't be made that this phrase always pertains to the wife/mother, only that it does so sometimes. So one must ask themselves, when reading Genesis 9, is the person in context Noah, or his wife (who is never mentioned in that passage at all).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The context is in the preceding verses:

Noah began to be a man of the soil
Noah planted a vineyard
Noah drank of the wine
Noah became drunk
Noah lay uncovered in his tent

I understand that this is the context. It sets the stage of why the sin happened. Noah was not sober and awake to prevent the sin from happening. What I am saying is: The "Literal Interpretation" goes against the context by the fact that it goes against these other verses.

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." (Genesis 9:22).

In verse 22, it makes no sense for Ham to look upon his father's nakedness and then to boast about it to his two brothers. They wouldn't really care because they more than likely seen their father nude when they bathed as children. Also, their father was in the privacy of his own tent whereby the brother's wives would not see him.

"And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness." (Genesis 9:23).

Okay. Why would the two brothers need to cover the nakedness of their father if he was in his own tent? The only other person in his tent would be his wife. So it makes no sense. Also, why would they care about looking upon their own father naked. Was this kind of sin a problem at this time in history? There were only 8 that came off the ark. Besides, this sin does not even make sense. Again, the brothers would not care if Noah was in his own tent nude. What would happen if he wanted to be intimate with his wife and lay in bed in his tent nude? Are his brothers going to come in again and cover him? It's silly.

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him." (Genesis 9:24).

Okay. This one really does not make any sense. How would Noah know if Ham was looking at him while he was in the nude? Was it the sheet that gave it away? There are only two possibilities I can see of what happened in light of Ham's sin of sleeping with his own mother.

#1 Possibility.

Ham threatened Noah ahead of time that he was going to have a child by his wife and call him "Canaan." When Noah awoke, he could have seen the sheet on his wife with her crying and saying, "Oh Ham, what have you done?!"

#2 Possiblity.

God gave Noah a dream of what was happening and what would happen in the future. There could be another possiblity (of course). But in the Wooden Literal Interpretation of this Story, we descend down into even more illogical non-sense that goes beyond the real world and or how we live life. Such a story cannot be applied today because nothing like that really ever happens.

"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Genesis 9:25).

Here we see Noah curse Ham's son. In the Literal View: This story again spirals down into even more illogic non-sense. Why would Noah curse Ham for a minor infraction of looking at his body in the nude? It makes no sense. It is illogical.

There's nothing nonsensical about it. The context pertains to Noah. I find it amusing that you try to justify disregarding the plain text based on what you claim would happen in a similar circumstance today. First, this didn't take place in today's world. Second, even if it had, what kind of upbringing did you have where such a thing would be considered normal? Not in my house.

Let's get something straight. There is no real world scenario that you can make or example you can show where this scenario fits reality. Nobody looks at their father in the nude with their father than cursing their offspring as a result.

Ham looked at his father naked then boasted about it to his brothers. It was an extremely disrespectful act on his part and is backed up when we are told in verse 24 that Noah was upset when he learned what Ham had done "to him".

Again, there is no scenario in the real world that you can apply this to because nobody does this.
If you don't get where I am coming from with this, that is okay. I think it is best for you to let it go; And we should agree to disagree and love one another.

Plus, you still haven't answered the question (again). So, I'll ask again. How would the text have to be written in order for it to mean to you that the actual nakedness of the father is being referenced? For clarity, I mean if you were reading the passage through, how would the wording have to change to get across the point to you that the subject was Noah.

The same way we do with other verses in Scripture. When we see the word "slept with his fathers" we know it is talking about death because that is the context and it is a repeated truth in Scripture. I have already provided the metaphorical references for you by coloring the bolded words in red in my previous post to you. You can line the words up from Leviticus with the words used in Genesis 9. We see a repeat of this story with Lot and his two daughters (with Lot also being drunk).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For those being caught up in the 'fathers nakedness' references in Leviticus as always pertaining to the mother, they do not. Shockingly, they also pertain to the father as well.

Leviticus 18:7 mentions both the nakedness of the father and the nakedness of the mother.

Leviticus 18:11 references the 'nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter'. If the nakedness of the father always pertained to the mother, this would read in a completely confusing way as 'The nakedness of thy mothers wife's daughter'

Leviticus 18:18-19 references both the 'the nakedness of thy father's sister' and the 'the nakedness of thy mother's sister'. Again, if the phrase 'nakedness of the father' always pertained to the wife/mother, these would be the same verses.

A case can't be made that this phrase always pertains to the wife/mother, only that it does so sometimes. So one must ask themselves, when reading Genesis 9, is the person in context Noah, or his wife (who is never mentioned in that passage at all).

But we do see in Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11 both saying that the nakedness of the wife is the nakedness of the father. Looking at the context of Genesis 9, these metaphorical phrases sheds light on the story in making sense.

It is the same as if somebody said the word "cool" (meaning cold) and the word "cool" (meaning awesome) in the same sentence when they speak. A person who would not know about the metaphor of cool meaning awesome could easily be confused unless they understood that metaphor. If the conversation was written down later, the same could happen.

 

[icxn]

...A case can't be made that this phrase always pertains to the wife/mother, only that it does so sometimes. So one must ask themselves, when reading Genesis 9, is the person in context Noah, or his wife (who is never mentioned in that passage at all).

I'm with you. The only plausible metaphor I see in the story (without denying the literal meaning) is as follows:

Noah represent God the Father, the true Husbandman. His nakedness is none other than Jesus Christ whose uncomeliness (Isa. 53:2) the Jews (Ham) treated with ridicule. Unlike them, the Saints of the Old Testament symbolized by Shem, since he was the firstborn, and those of the New Testament Japheth, the last son, treated Him with reverence, accepting the mystery of the Incarnation. It says, “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem;” This is exactly what happened with us, the Church of the Gentiles.

Btw, Noah didn’t curse Ham so as not to contradict God who had already blessed him (see verse 1).

 

[SeventyOne]

I understand that this is the context. It sets the stage of why the sin happened. Noah was not sober and awake to prevent the sin from happening. What I am saying is: The "Literal Interpretation" goes against the context by the fact that it goes against these other verses.

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." (Genesis 9:22).

In verse 22, it makes no sense for Ham to look upon his father's nakedness and then to boast about it to his two brothers. They wouldn't really care because they more than likely seen their father nude when they bathed as children. Also, their father was in the privacy of his own tent whereby the brother's wives would not see him.

"And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness." (Genesis 9:23).

Okay. Why would the two brothers need to cover the nakedness of their father if he was in his own tent? The only other person in his tent would be his wife. So it makes no sense. Also, why would they care about looking upon their own father naked. Was this kind of sin a problem at this time in history? There were only 8 that came off the ark. Besides, this sin does not even make sense. Again, the brothers would not care if Noah was in his own tent nude. What would happen if he wanted to be intimate with his wife and lay in bed in his tent nude? Are his brothers going to come in again and cover him? It's silly.

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him." (Genesis 9:24).

Okay. This one really does not make any sense. How would Noah know if Ham was looking at him while he was in the nude? Was it the sheet that gave it away? There are only two possibilities I can see of what happened in light of Ham's sin of sleeping with his own mother.

#1 Possibility.

Ham threatened Noah ahead of time that he was going to have a child by his wife and call him "Canaan." When Noah awoke, he could have seen the sheet on his wife with her crying and saying, "Oh Ham, what have you done?!"

#2 Possiblity.

God gave Noah a dream of what was happening and what would happen in the future. There could be another possiblity (of course). But in the Wooden Literal Interpretation of this Story, we descend down into even more illogical non-sense that goes beyond the real world and or how we live life. Such a story cannot be applied today because nothing like that really ever happens.

"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Genesis 9:25).

Here we see Noah curse Ham's son. In the Literal View: This story again spirals down into even more illogic non-sense. Why would Noah curse Ham for a minor infraction of looking at his body in the nude? It makes no sense. It is illogical.



Let's get something straight. There is no real world scenario that you can make or example you can show where this scenario fits reality. Nobody looks at their father in the nude with their father than cursing their offspring as a result.

You make a lot of unfounded assumptions here to try to support your point. No 'real world scenario'? Really? You think everyone behaves in a set pattern you've made up in your mind for them to follow?

[Staff edit]

Again, there is no scenario in the real world that you can apply this to because nobody does this.
If you don't get where I am coming from with this, that is okay. I think it is best for you to let it go; And we should agree to disagree and love one another.

Again, the world doesn't follow the behavior patters you prescribe to them in your head.

 

[SeventyOne]

But we do see in Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11 both saying that the nakedness of the wife is the nakedness of the father. Looking at the context of Genesis 9, these metaphorical phrases sheds light on the story in making sense.

It is the same as if somebody said the word "cool" (meaning cold) and the word "cool" (meaning awesome) in the same sentence when they speak. A person who would not know about the metaphor of cool meaning awesome could easily be confused unless they understood that metaphor. If the conversation was written down later, the same could happen.

It's not the only way the story makes sense. In fact, the accusation of incest is what makes no sense because it requires a lot of assumptions and additions to the text.

Face it, sometime the 'nakedness of the father' is the actual nakedness of the father, and scripture backs me up as I have shown.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Here are some points that don’t add up with the Literal Interpretation on the Story of Noah and Ham:

#1. God's Morality or Goodness.

God is into fair justice. 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."

The person who interprets the story of Noah and Ham literally is 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) for Ham looking at his father nude 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 the literalist on Genesis 9 is basically saying to me is that 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.

For the idiom in Leviticus 18:7-8, Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:17 are still true. It is not erased by what is said in earlier part of the Bible (For God had used Moses to write all five books of the Torah). 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 a person who comes along from another country and they are attempting to change the word "cool" within our culture here in America because they prefer people to speak more literal. But life does not work that way. The Bible has figures of speech that defines things for us (just as the real world has figures of speech).

#3. How the Real World Works.

In a person's literal wooden reading of the "Story of Noah and Ham", they have to ignore how the real world works in order to make their interpretation or view on this story true.

Here are problems a person may run if they ignroe reality or the real world within Gensis 9:

(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. As for Noah's wife: 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? Why did she need the two brothers to do it?
(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 or unless Ham threatened to have a child by his wife so as to assert his power).
(f) Why would Noah immediately wake up and then 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?

These are the things that IMHO cast serious doubt on the literalist interpretation on Noah and Ham's Story. In either case, whether folks here agree or disagree, I love you all in Jesus Christ.

May God bless you all greatly today this fine day.

With loving kindness to you all in Christ Jesus.

Sincerely,

~ BL. Highlighter.

 

[SeventyOne]

The person who interprets the story of Noah and Ham literally is suggesting that God had Noah curse Canaan over a very minor transgression.

Minor transgression? Last time I checked honoring one's mother and father was part of the 10 commandments, mixed right in with murder, adultery, and stealing.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The problem is that while it is true that looking upon one’s parents nude is dishonoring them, the text does not specifically say that is what happened here. Also, I see dishonor of parents as a pattern of behavior that is wrong and just one incident that is small alone. First, the fact that Ham looked at his father nude does not make any sense. It is like saying, that Bob made love to a tree. Have humans made love to plants? I have no doubt, but it is not that common. I don’t believe the Bible speaks of rare and odd sins like this.

 

[SeventyOne]

The problem is that while it is true that looking upon one’s parents nude is dishonoring them, the text does not specifically say that is what happened here.

It really does. In fact, that's exactly what it says...

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.​

Where you are off is when you are redefining words to make it fit a particular narrative.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It really does. In fact, that's exactly what it says...

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.​

Where you are off is when you are redefining words to make it fit a particular narrative.

As I told you before. You are accusing me of something that is false. The words in Genesis 9 for our story are defined by the metaphors in Levitiicus that I showed you. Applying the metaphors brings logic and understanding to not only the story but other stories and points made in the Bible, as well.

May God bless you.