Noah - was he just surpressing his true self?

[Hammster]

Are you saying that I'm separated from God, and you are not?

I don't know you well enough to even make an assessment.

 

[radhead]

I don't know you well enough to even make an assessment.

What if I were to tell you that I don't believe any of the Southern Baptist doctrine? But I do believe in God?

 

[Hammster]

What if I were to tell you that I don't believe any of the Southern Baptist doctrine? But I do believe in God?

I'd say okay.

 

[radhead]

I'd say okay.

I don't believe that anyone is ever separated from God's presence and fellowship, and I don't believe that is biblical to say that people are.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why did Noah curse Canaan when it was Ham who saw him naked? Why was Noah so angry that Ham saw him naked? Some propose that Ham and/or Canaan actually did something to Noah in addition to seeing him naked.

You see, that is the problem, thinking like this. You start with the conclusion that Noah's anger must have been justified, and then use that to speculate about things that happened. Why he cursed Canaan is likely because it was justifiable to punish children for their parents' sins back then in the OT. Notice he doesn't just punish Canaan either, he punishes all of his ancestors as well.

 

[Hammster]

I don't believe that anyone is ever separated from God's presence and fellowship, and I don't believe that is biblical to say that people are.

Okay.

 

[radhead]

You see, that is the problem, thinking like this. You start with the conclusion that Noah's anger must have been justified, and then use that to speculate about things that happened. Why he cursed Canaan is likely because it was justifiable to punish children for their parents' sins back then in the OT. Notice he doesn't just punish Canaan either, he punishes all of his ancestors as well.

Excellent point. This so-called cursing by God (through Noah) gives credence to the idea that some peoples or races are less worthy. And so we as "Christians" don't even have to try to get along with anyone who offends us.

No, I"m no longer a Christian, just using that word to make a point. Because I know that many Christians have that attitude towards nonbelievers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did Noah curse Canaan when it was Ham who saw him naked?

Noah couldn't curse Ham because God had already blessed him.

Genesis 9:1a And God blessed Noah and his sons,

 

[AV1611VET]

Noah was portrayed as the perfect obedient son.

No, he wasn't.

Noah was portrayed as ...

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

He was a sinner saved by grace.

 

[Aman777]

I can't accept the teaching of ANY church if no one can even agree on what their book says. I can't take any church seriously.

It's because you have confused the Church, which is the Body of believers in Jesus Christ, with religion. There are tens of thousands of religions but only One Church. Jesus adds to the Church, daily. Act 2:47 Amen?

 

[ewq1938]

Where did you read "ridicule" or any synonym therein? It just says "told". I see no reason to vilify Ham at all. It is a vague story written with little detail at all. There is no reason to read into it that Ham was mocking Noah in any way.

You are very correct.

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

(uncovering someone's nakedness in the Hebrew means to have sex with their wife
Leviticus 18:5-8 )

Keep in mind this states that Ham saw this, not that he did the uncovering which suggests he might have seen someone who was "uncovering" Noah's wife.


K&D

The laws against incest are introduced in Lev_18:6 with the general prohibition, descriptive of the nature of this sin, “None of you shall approach to any flesh of his flesh, to uncover nakedness.” The difference between flesh, and flesh, is involved in obscurity, as both words are used in connection with edible flesh (see the Lexicons). “Flesh of his flesh” is a flesh that is of his own flesh, belongs to the same flesh as himself (Gen_2:24), and is applied to a blood-relation, blood-relationship being called (or flesh-kindred) in Hebrew (Lev_18:17). Sexual intercourse is called uncovering the nakedness of another (Eze_16:36; Eze_23:18). The prohibition relates to both married and unmarried intercourse, though the reference is chiefly to the former (see Lev_18:18; Lev_20:14, Lev_20:17, Lev_20:21). Intercourse is forbidden (1) with a mother, (2) with a step-mother, (3) with a sister or half-sister, (4) with a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter, (5) with the daughter of a step-mother, (6) with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother, (7) with the wife of an uncle on the father's side, (8) with a daughter-in-law, (9) with a sister-in-law, or brother's wife, (10) with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter, and (11) with two sisters at the same time.





Now, if Ham secretly had sex with his own mom, he wouldnt go and tell his brothers about it right? "Hey guess what, I just had sex with Mom!" I mean, either Ham is utterly retarded and SICK or we are blaming him for a sexual crime he never committed.

See, it is written that Ham only SAW the nakedness...not that he did the uncovering so it is likely someone else uncovered it especially since Ham told his brothers what he has found. That's a BIG difference. Ham was the first to discover the crime!



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


Heres the key. When this says "his younger son" we have to figure out what Noah meant. The word "younger" really means the youngest here.


Genesis 42:32 We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.

Anytime there are more than two, the word means the youngest else there would be no way to tell which was meant especially if the speaker is the father as all his children would be "younger" than he is.


Noahs youngest son is Japheth and Japheth didnt even see the nakedness but helped to cover it back up so it couldnt be him. The companion bible makes an error and says that Shem is the youngest but again he isnt guilty of anything either. And Ham is the middle son and was the one who first reported the "crime" so it wasnt him.

but what if Noah said "his younger son" and meant Hams youngest son? Or even his youngest grandson as the Hebrew makes no distinction between son and grandson.


Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what HAMS YOUNGEST son had done unto him.

or it can be translated this way:

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his [youngest] [grand]son had done unto him.


Hams youngest son and Noahs youngest grandson is Canaan...the same Canaan we were told two strange times that Ham was the father of!


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


This is why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham because Canaan was the guilty one!

Some think that Ham slept with his mother and she gave birth to Canaan and thats why Canaan was cursed but unless a woman can get pregnant and give birth in one night this couldn't be possible!

The uncovering just happened! If Canaan wasn't already a son of Ham then how would Noah even know Canaan's name to curse him, and why would we have been told twice that Ham was already the father of Canaan and again there is no way to even know if the mother got pregnant because its only been a very short time since it happened.

Some think the text is written out of order but that is not normally how scripture is presented to us from God. No, there is a simpler and more logical answer.


So it was Canaan who uncovered Noahs nakedness, and it was Ham that was the first to find out and SEE it. And when Noah awoke he cursed Hams youngest son Canaan. Note again that the nakedness was SEEN by Ham, not that Ham UNCOVERED the nakedness. That's a huge difference that is almost always overlooked.


Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

The sin is to UNCOVER it, not to SEE it after it was uncovered by someone else! Ham accidentally saw the nakedness...but he did not intentionally uncover and then see which is a crime in and of itself.


Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.



I think its fairly clear that Noah himself is the subject here and that he was drunk and it was HE that was uncovered. So, the nakedness of "his father" was actually his father and not his mother.



Personally I dont believe that Canaan had sex with his mother. I believe he only uncovered the nakedness of his father, but possibly of his mother....and yes thats written to be a sin also...



Leviticus 20:17 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.


This would be a literal uncovering to inspect or look intently at the naked body. This is what I believe Canaan did.



If canaan was actually a result of an sexual act, then he
would have only just been conceived in the womb and no one would even
know if she had become pregnant.

Furthermore, Noah curses someone by name, someone who supposedly is
barely a few hours alive in the womb and wont be born until 9 months
later.

1. So how would Noah even know his wife was actually pregnant?
2. pregnant with a boy and not a girl?
3. and how in the world would Noah already know the name of this child?


Hindsight in writing it years after? Sure, but that ruins the text and the flow of the story. No, it was written properly and in chronological and logical order with the proper clues for bible students to be able to figure out what happened, and who was guity.


Canaan actually had been alive for many years and wasnt a product of
any incest, and was the youngest child of Ham's wife.

There is another issue to consider:

Genesis 10:6
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Canaan is the last of Ham's four sons. In scripture, when children are listed like this it means they are all from the same mother and if one is not then that child's mother would be named:

Gen 35:22-26
And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these [are] the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

This is found throughout scripture. Another example:

Genesis 4:19-22
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.


If Canaan truly was a product of incest with Noah's wife, then ALL of Ham's children MUST be also her children. Such a thing is not spoken of in scripture so it is safe to assume none of Ham's children are children of any woman except Ham's wife.

Even if the crime was incest, I do not believe any child came of it since that also is not written about in scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the point radhead is making with this thread is that alcohol suppresses the inhibitions and brings out the "inner man," and is using Noah as a Biblical example.

What radhead needs to realize is that the "inner man" consists of:

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Galatians 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[radhead]

Noah, like his two older sons, was a very respectful and obedient religious man. Just like we would see today in a person like Billy Graham. He obeyed his "father" who rewarded and protected him in return. His youngest son, though, knew that there was a real person underneath. He uncovered Noah's true self that was hiding "inside" the cave. This kind of anger that Noah showed was just under the surface. The entire Bible can be viewed as an ancient textbook of family psychology.

Think of a privileged "white guy" in modern USA. He has worked hard and lives comfortably from the fruits of his labor. But he might have anger issues just below the surface because he has more of a sense of "entitlement". I certainly don't see anything presented as noble in the behavior of Noah. Not the way it is written.

 

[radhead]

By the way the "flood" represents an attack by outside invaders. Ezekiel uses exactly the same imagery about Tyre (in case you think I am reaching). Noah's flood may have been about the attack on Solomon's temple. The garden of Eden represent Solomon's temple, I believe.

 

[GenemZ]

Proof that Christians have to add to the words of the Bible to make it fit their doctrines.

Sir, if you knew what the Hebrew said about what happened when Noah got drunk? It would be classified as inappropriate contentography. Not by Noah, but Ham. They had just survived the destruction of a world that was filled with evil and depravity on such a level that God was forced to destroy it with the flood.

Apparently Ham picked up some bad behavior patterns from the world that was now left behind. Remember, they had no sexual morality yet mandated by God. Man was primitive at that stage in many ways.... Its why Lot was able to sleep with his daughters and God did not get on his case... For God judges us only according to what we have been made accountable to.

 

[GenemZ]

Noah couldn't curse Ham because God had already blessed him.

Genesis 9:1a And God blessed Noah and his sons,

If you read the chapter you would soon find out that God's blessing was to give Noah and his sons dominion over the earth. Ham never lost that. Being blessed does not mean one is no longer accountable for any wrongdoing. David was highly blessed of God, yet got slammed by the Lord when David got involved with the sinful situation involving Uriah and Bathsheba.

 

[radhead]

If you read the chapter you would soon find out that God's blessing was to give Noah and his sons dominion over the earth. Ham never lost that. Being blessed does not mean one is no longer accountable for any wrongdoing. David was highly blessed of God, yet got slammed by the Lord when David got involved with the sinful situation involving Uriah and Bathsheba.

Being blessed meant that he was given money and power as king. The fact is that a blessing "from God" always turns into a curse. The curse happened after he regained possession of the Ark of the covenant. Any kind of worldly riches and power that anyone receives is always attributed to God. (Kind of like the way athletes will praise God after a big win.) But this story makes it clear that that kind of thinking is wrong. If you read the story correctly, that is.

 

[GenemZ]

Being blessed meant that he was given money and power as king. The fact is that a blessing "from God" always turns into a curse.

I love how humanists find ways to troll.

Very inventive, but totally wrong.

 

[radhead]

I love how humanists find ways to troll.

Very inventive, but totally wrong.

I didn't mean it exactly like that. Money and power are not necessarily blessings from God, even though the OT would have people think that. But to think that a blessing from God means money and power, to me, makes a Christian wrong. I'm sorry you feel that way, because it's wrong.

 

[Tom 1]

Noah was portrayed as the perfect obedient son. But after he got drunk he began to show his true self. The younger son was the only one who wanted to even see what he was like on the inside ("inside" the cave) that he kept hidden from others. Then he cursed and banished that son because he had dared trying to show his brothers that Noah had a side that was different than the whitewashed facaded he showed the world on the outside. All of that anger which had been bottled up inside.

What do you think of the fact that Noah repressed his true feelings and that he was really a very angry person? Perhaps this was a portrayal of those who are obedient and religious in nature? Are they just repressing their true selves?

It’s easy to see Biblical characters as two dimensional, as we don’t usually get that much info on them, but they are people, not perfect angels, and the text provides enough info to give some insight into that. There is more to the text however that can be drawn out, with reference to other sources, by a skilled writer/researcher, e.g Erich Auerbach and maybe David Rosenberg on Abraham.
David is a useful comparison to Noah because there were is a lot more information in the bible about his life. Like Noah, the overall inclination of his life was towards God, but when he messed up, he really messed up. Biblical heros are portrayed ‘warts and all’, the redeeming feature being a life that on the whole leans towards obedience to and relationship with God.