Ham´s sin

[ReneJCeternity]

What did Ham do to Noah that made Noah curse Ham´s son? From what I studied Ham `saw´ his father while Noah was drunk. `Saw´in the Hebrew can mean look upon joyfully and even gaze. Noah `cursed´Ham´s son. Cursed in the Hebrew means to execrate, which means to abhor. Now I conclude that Ham was looking lustfully upon his father and had sinful imaginations concerning this. Now the tribe of Caanan(name derived from Ham´s son) was a sexually perverse tribe. Their cults and worship practices consisted of homosexual practices including acts with temple prostitutes to fertilize the earth, in which the rain(in their abominable beliefs)is symbolic of sperm fertilizing the earth to produce fruits(food). Now my brothers and sisters. Am I accurate in this? Can you please give me some additional input if you have any? GOD Almighty bless you, shalom.

 

[St_Worm2]

What did Ham do to Noah that made Noah curse Ham´s son? From what I studied Ham `saw´ his father while Noah was drunk. `Saw´in the Hebrew can mean look upon joyfully and even gaze. Noah `cursed´Ham´s son. Cursed in the Hebrew means to execrate, which means to abhor. Now I conclude that Ham was looking lustfully upon his father and had sinful imaginations concerning this. Now the tribe of Caanan(name derived from Ham´s son) was a sexually perverse tribe. Their cults and worship practices consisted of homosexual practices including acts with temple prostitutes to fertilize the earth, in which the rain(in their abominable beliefs)is symbolic of sperm fertilizing the earth to produce fruits(food). Now my brothers and sisters. Am I accurate in this? Can you please give me some additional input if you have any? GOD Almighty bless you, shalom.

Hi Rene, I believe the Hebrew from v22 is clear, Ham ... "saw the nakedness of his father". It implies nothing more than that, and it doesn't need to (though some commentators have certainly thought there had to be more to it than that and raised much speculation in doing so).

The ancients regarded seeing another's "nakedness" in an entirely different way than we moderns often do. They believed to see another naked was to take away his potency or strength. Remember that captured armies, and especially their leaders, were often forced to march naked through jeering crowds behind the army who had just conquered them. Some even committed suicide to avoid such debasement at the hands of their captors.

They also took very seriously the need to honor one's parents ... just like the Bible does. Ham disregarded these societal norms and in doing so added greatly to his father's shame and disgrace, especially when he decided to flippantly inform both of his brothers about it.

Of course, nothing much beyond the facts is clear from this passage. Noah was drunk, Noah was naked, and Ham witnessed it all. Exactly why his dad was so infuriated with him is somewhat speculative, but the explanation I gave above seems to fit the context best (IMHO anyway).

--David

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Take a look at Leviticus 18, specifically the NKJV translation. "To see nakedness" meant have sexual relations. So when you put Leviticus 18 together with Genesis 9:22 it becomes obvious what transpired.

 

[TheSeedofDavid]

Look man, what happened was basically, Ham saw his father naked, he didn't have sex with him, how did you get that out of the scriptures. And the curse was fulfilled when the land of canaan was taken by the israelites.

 

[singpeace]

Ham saw Noah drunk and naked. Then he laughed and made fun of his father's nakedness and told his brothers to come and look.:o

 

[TheSeedofDavid]

Ham saw Noah drunk and naked. Then he laughed and made fun of his father's nakedness and told his brothers to come and look.:o

That aint in the scriptures.

 

[St_Worm2]

Take a look at Leviticus 18, specifically the NKJV translation. "To see nakedness" meant have sexual relations. So when you put Leviticus 18 together with Genesis 9:22 it becomes obvious what transpired.

Hi BF, there's no question that Leviticus 18 is referring to illicit sexual relationships, commanding over and over again,

"you shall not UNCOVER the nakedness of your ____________ ".
​

This is very different from Genesis 9 where the Bible tells us that Ham simply,

"SAW the nakedness of his father".
​

In fact, in v21, we read that it was Noah who "uncovered" himself. While the passages in question from Leviticus and Genesis both talk about "nakedness", I think you can see why you can't use one to interpret the other, yes?

--David

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

The preface to Leviticus 18 says "according to the doings of the land of Canaan...you shall not do". Hmm...Canaan is referenced in the preface to laws regarding sexual immorality.

Also, in Gen 9 it says "So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him." So Ham did something to him. Combine this with the language used in Leviticus 18 and I think we have more than just viewing Noah's naked body.

But given the little information we have to go on, there is no clear answer and we could argue about it for years without resolution.

 

[ReneJCeternity]

Hi BF, there's no question that Leviticus 18 is referring to illicit sexual relationships, commanding over and over again,

"you shall not UNCOVER the nakedness of your ____________ ".
​

This is very different from Genesis 9 where the Bible tells us that Ham simply,

"SAW the nakedness of his father".
​

In fact, in v21, we read that it was Noah who "uncovered" himself. While the passages in question from Leviticus and Genesis both talk about "nakedness", I think you can see why you can't use one to interpret the other, yes?

--David

Yes, I completely agree with you! You can´t use one text that talks about something totally different and use it to compliment another that is quite different. In the English language it sounds the same but go to the original it is pretty different.

 

[ReneJCeternity]

One last comment to conclude...Please brothers and sisters in Christ, I just posted this link in the beginning to converse in a godly manner. I ask of you all to take this in a mature godly character as GOD Almighty wants. GOD brings unity not dissension within the body of Christ Jesus. Immature folk (spiritual children) tend to bring dissension in doctrinal topics. Blessings you all and thanks for the comments!![/B][/B]

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Yes, I completely agree with you! You can´t use one text that talks about something totally different and use it to compliment another that is quite different. In the English language it sounds the same but go to the original it is pretty different.

Ok, well I'm unable to read the original, so I only have the english translations to go on. Now, "uncovering nakedness" doesn't exactly sound like a sexual encounter any more than "seeing nakedness". Not sure why the Bible uses this analogy in Leviticus to begin with, but if we accept this analogy in Leviticus to speak of sexual immorality why can't the similar text in Genesis speak of sexual immorality?

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I really am trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm had this question rolling around in my head for a while and I'm glad this discussion popped up.

 

[St_Worm2]

Ok, well I'm unable to read the original, so I only have the english translations to go on. Now, "uncovering nakedness" doesn't exactly sound like a sexual encounter any more than "seeing nakedness". Not sure why the Bible uses this analogy in Leviticus to begin with, but if we accept this analogy in Leviticus to speak of sexual immorality why can't the similar text in Genesis speak of sexual immorality?

It's not so much being able to read the Hebrew as knowing what the phrase "uncover the nakedness of" refers to. It's a Hebrew euphemism for sexual relations.

Why Moses chose to use a euphemism rather than simply and bluntly stating what he meant, I can't say, but that's what the linguists say we have here. The people of Moses' day would have certainly understood it ... just like we might say today (being silly here), "thou shalt not go all the way with thy father's wife" or "thou shalt not make it to home plate with thy neighbor's wife". I'm bett'n someone speaking a completely different language and living 3,500 years from now (who hadn't studied the language, manners and customs of our times) might have a similar problem with that phraseology, yes ..

On the other hand, the Hebrew is so clear in Genesis 9:22, that no translation or paraphrase that I've seen (and I have about 20) translates the text other than "saw his father's nakedness". That's not the case with Leviticus 18 where starting with even a conservative paraphrase like the NIV, they all paraphrase "you shall not uncover the nakedness of" into something along the lines of "do not have sexual relations with".

Again, the Hebrew in Genesis 9 means what it means, Ham marched into his dad's tent and unexpectedly caught a glimpse. He was not actively pursuing something ... like going into a tent and intentionally uncovering someone in their bed would imply ... he just stumbled upon his father who was already in that state.

Hope that helps a bit.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Ok, then why the extreme curse if that's all that happened?

 

[St_Worm2]

Ok, then why the extreme curse if that's all that happened?

Hi BF, the reason for the "extreme curse" is because what happened was a HUGE deal in the mind of Noah and the people of his day. I think the problem may be that you want to impose 21st century moralities on a society that lived in tents 2,400 years prior to the birth of Christ. What they thought of nakedness, being drunk, and honoring their parents is quite different from us. Shoot, what they thought about sinning in general had to be radically different from us considering they had just experienced what happens when God has had enough, IOW, the Flood.

Actually, your question takes us full circle back to the beginning of this thread. There I wrote:

The ancients regarded seeing another's "nakedness" in an entirely different way than we moderns often do. They believed to see another naked was to take away his potency or strength. Remember that captured armies, and especially their leaders, were often forced to march naked through jeering crowds behind the army who had just conquered them. Some even committed suicide to avoid such debasement at the hands of their captors.

They also took very seriously the need to honor one's parents ... just like the Bible does. Ham disregarded these societal norms and in doing so added greatly to his father's shame and disgrace, especially when he decided to flippantly inform both of his brothers about it.
​

Again, I hope that helps a bit anyway.

--David

 

[ReneJCeternity]

Ok, then why the extreme curse if that's all that happened?

I agree. Noah cursed,execrated, Ham´s son. Execrate is very deep. It is to declare hateful or abhorrent. But, we have to keep in mind what Deuteronomy 29:29 says"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law", we weren´t there to see what really happened. And in this thread someone mentioned that we can go on and on about this but hey, we learn from each other. Iron sharpens iron...Blessings!!

 

[AgapeBible]

Hi everybody, perhaps I can clear up the matter.

First off, I don't think there were any sexual relations. Noah got drunk and took his clothes off and fell asleep in his tent. Perhaps he had been masturbating and his son Ham found out about it when he came into the tent and saw him naked. Ham went into his father's tent, he didn't ask permission to go in, just barged right in and stared at his dad naked. Then he laughed and went out and made fun of his dad to his brothers, perhaps he told his son Canaan and Canaan had something to do with it, maybe Canaan laughed and made fun of his grandfather and aggravated him. Perhaps Canaan was a brat.


I can just imagine Ham going up to his brothers and saying, "Hey guys, you gotta come see this! Dad is lying butt naked asleep in his tent and he's knocked out drunk!" Ham's brothers were not amused and they went in not looking and covered up their dad.

 

[juvenissun]

I like to sleep naked in my bedroom. But I do mind if my son walked in and saw me naked. Noah was not sleeping in the vineyard. He slept in his own tent.

And, if my son simply opened my bedroom door and saw me naked. He could simply say sorry to me afterwards. Why would he want to call my other two sons and told them that I sleep naked? Was Noah wrong by sleeping naked in his own bedroom?

The whole thing only says: Ham does not respect his father. What Ham should do is to close the door of the tent, and guarded the tent until Noah waked up. Shem and Japheth only did the next best thing.

 

[caprice09]

If it is merely to gaze upon the nakedness of his father, why when Noah awoke did He curse Canaan (the yet unborn son of Ham). Over and over again scripture addresses Ham as the father of Canaan, as if Ham's actions set a precedence to be followed by his children (for some reason specific to Canaan who wasn't even the first born of Ham).

I have heard that Noah and his wife were drunk and the verse that says "uncovered" refers to Noah and His wife sleeping together, and the verse that says "looked upon" refers to Ham seeing Noah and his wife (because the nakedness of the father still refers to his wife as in Lev 18) still laying about openly (passed out). And the other two sons would not so much as look upon the parents and covered them with a blanket.

Also, what was said of nakedness in those days is also true which is why the phrase "uncovered the nakedness of..." is used in Lev 18. Since God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve after the fall, for no other reason should a person uncover one's nakedness but for the purposes of sex.

 

[juvenissun]

If it is merely to gaze upon the nakedness of his father, why when Noah awoke did He curse Canaan (the yet unborn son of Ham). Over and over again scripture addresses Ham as the father of Canaan, as if Ham's actions set a precedence to be followed by his children (for some reason specific to Canaan who wasn't even the first born of Ham).

I have heard that Noah and his wife were drunk and the verse that says "uncovered" refers to Noah and His wife sleeping together, and the verse that says "looked upon" refers to Ham seeing Noah and his wife (because the nakedness of the father still refers to his wife as in Lev 18) still laying about openly (passed out). And the other two sons would not so much as look upon the parents and covered them with a blanket.

Also, what was said of nakedness in those days is also true which is why the phrase "uncovered the nakedness of..." is used in Lev 18. Since God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve after the fall, for no other reason should a person uncover one's nakedness but for the purposes of sex.

One can interpret a verse by comparing it with the same word used in other verses. But one should also use common sense.

How could Ham (want to) have any sex with a sleeping old (~700 years old) man? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Just came across Ezekiel 16 which uses the same language.

35 ‘Now then, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD! 36 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, 37 surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who break wedlock or shed blood are judged; I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy. 39 I will also give you into their hand, and they shall throw down your shrines and break down your high places. They shall also strip you of your clothes, take your beautiful jewelry, and leave you naked and bare.

In verse 36 Israel uncovered her nakedness and committed harlotry with her lovers. So here "uncovering nakedness" matches Lev 18.

In verse 37 the Lord pronounces judgement against Israel, the judgement being that the Lord will gather Israel's lovers and her enemies and will "uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see your nakedness".

Now, the question is does the meaning of "uncovering nakedness" change between verse 36 and 37? Is Israel's punishment only the shame of being naked, or is the Lord declaring Israel's lovers and enemies will have their way with Israel?

Verse 39 tells us the Lord will "give you into their hand" and then they "will strip you of your clothes", "take your beautiful jewelry", and "leave you naked and bare".

Exactly what is being described? To me the Lord is using sexual language to describe Israel's sin, and using sexual language to describe her punishment. That is, because of her unfaithfulness the Lord will hand her over to her lovers and enemies who will rape her and leave her "naked and bare". Pretty harsh judgement eh?

Now, if it is true that these passages describe rape, then this helps us better interpret what "seeing nakedness" means, no?

Disclaimer: I realize this is one interpretation of this scripture, and accept that the language is not clear and open to other interpretations. I'm not saying I have all the answers