• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Bible Highlighter, Jul 14, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    First, again, I am not saying Jesus and or God's religion or ways are false.
    You are falsely pushing those words upon me.

    Second, we are not talking about other man made traditions here or man made traditions in general. We are talking about the man made traditions of the Pharisees that undid the Word of God.

    Matthew 15:6 says the Pharisees made the Word of God of no effect by their tradition.
    So if the Word of God is of no effect, can they still be saved?
    Matthew 15:9 says in vain the Pharisees do worship Him. Jesus then gives us the reason by saying that it is because they are teaching the doctrines and commandments of men.

    Three, Jesus said the Pharisees were white washed tombs. So it does not appear they are following God's true ways.

    Four, Jesus says they ignored the weightier matters of the Law, like justice, love, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23) (Luke 11:42).

    Five, if after examining the verses above, if you still believe otherwise, then please show me a verse or passage that tells me that the Pharisees were following God''s true ways and were saved.

    Thank you.
    I hope this helps;
    And may God bless you.


    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2017
  2. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,424
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Maybe you just don't think it important to choose words that make sense and represent God.

    It's a shame when one tries to teach and then uses that platform against God by twisting
    His Word. We are not to be a stumbling block. More care is needed.
     
  3. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +1,563
    Christian
    Private
    H7200 is translated as enjoy in a very specific context in Ecclesiastes and the context helps build why it would be translated this way. because it is in such a specific genre it doesn't help your case that the same translation should be applied to Gen 9. And that is another issue, no translation that I was able to find translates the text this way and it would suggest that translators all disagree with you. In fact I was unable to find any supporting claims that "see" [H7200] = uncover as you so boldly claim. You accusing me of using unscriptural proofs to establish my point but where do you get yours? Where is the biblical connection because I don't see it. It seems a little desperate to jump to such an obscure and unsupported translation and hurts your case and your credibility.

    Habakkuk 2:15 doesn't use ra'ah (H7200) so your point is lost. In fact H7200 is never translated as enjoyment in a sexual sense and never translated as to uncover. Again this seems desperate and forceful.

    Your Revelation example is all in the same context so is not a like example but Gen 9 and Lev 18 are not in the same context instead are linked by a similar use of words. No translation supports your claim and no cross references of Lev 18 suggests Gen 9. So if we are going to use Lev 18 then we have to be careful to ensure it can be applied. Lev 18 talks about uncovering nakedness and you try and reconcile this missing in Gen 9 by saying "see = uncover/enjoy" yet there is no support to do this. There is too much conjecture in your interpretation for it to be so dogmatic. Your attempts are laudable but because are so loosely supported it can only be taken as a possiblity. In fact the text isn't clear about a lot of details and seems to be more about a contrast between Ham as doing wrong and his brothers as doing right, like a Cain and Abel parallel, not about what Ham did in the tent. We should use the cues of the text to understand it better and it's focus is not about what Ham did so to hyper focus on the in between the lines when the text is leading us away from it seems irresponsible.

    We may all think we are hebrew scholars because we can do a word search in concordance but if you really want to do make changes to translations because you think you know better you need to show how this can be supported and you have not done this sufficiently. You can continue believing in this but no one is going to take you seriously based on the evidence you are giving. Parroting back that you only read God's word doesn't help this conversation or your case any further. Obviously not everyone agrees so you need to give greater support for what you're saying such as more backing for your controversial translations and interpretations.

    cursing Canaan is not proof there was a sexual act. This is not a "sin" of seeing your father naked this is an issue of dishonor to the father. Noah cursed Ham's son and by doing this brought same upon Ham's household but Noah is also a man and his curse should not be looked at as ordained by God.

    who said I've looked at jewish understanding of this text? I certainly have made no suggestion of this. You post this in the controversial theology section so that tells me you know this interpretation is not popularly received among Christians. Whether you think it's fair or not you need to give greater support otherwise you're just another crackpot spewing out why they are right and everyone else is wrong. I doubt this is what you want so if you want to be taken seriously then you need to be more serious with how you support your interpretation of this text.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  4. Joe Fizz

    Joe Fizz Active Member

    162
    +247
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    actually there is one thing that throws your"guess" out of whack(don't hate memr for this)
    after ham comes out of the tent he tells his brothers what he saw but does nothing,then his two brothers,take one blanket and "cover" their father's nakedness by laying next to him on both sides with the blanket,so as proving they were "covering" Noah their father not his wife,besides uncovering anyone's nakedness is nowhere in the chapter,so Noah was plainly Naked,not covered up at all,search it out alongside the holy spirit dear brother and determine for yourself the answer,for some things be hidden amongst words others are plainly said.
     
  5. Joe Fizz

    Joe Fizz Active Member

    162
    +247
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    also the bible says"he" was uncovered Genesis chapter 9 verse 21
     
  6. Joe Fizz

    Joe Fizz Active Member

    162
    +247
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    also the bible says ham "Saw" not "uncovered" his father's nakedness,as in he plainly saw him drunk and naked,his wife is not mentioned in this part of the bible because she was not naked or she was not in the tent,also I saw your remark as to that it would be silly for ham to tell his brothers that their father was naked,and this is totally untrue,think on it how many people today tell of a sin or of someone looking foolish and only gossip or tell about them but do nothing,ham was no different he saw his father was naked and told his brothers because he knew it was sinful,and wanted to just yell about how their father had become,doing no good,where as his other two brothers,when hearing of this,decided to cover their father in such a way that they would not be looking at him naked and as well simply solve the "problem" their brother was griping about,simple,
     
  7. SBC

    SBC Well-Known Member

    +573
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    What traditions?

    Scripture they disobeyed what specifically?

    Scripture of the Pharisees worshiping Jesus?

    Scripture of what doctrine they taught were commandments of men?

    Thanks,
    God Bless,

    SBC
     
  8. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Dear DWS:

    Grace, peace, and love to you from the Lord Jesus Christ.
    I hope all is going well with you this fine day that the Lord has made.

    Anyways, to get down to business:

    In regards to the translators disagreeing with me: Well, scholar Eugene H. Peterson of the Message Bible leaves out the metaphorical phrase "To look on nakedness" and simply refers to the literal meaning by mentioning sexual relations instead in Habakkuk 2:15. As for the translators of Strong's Concordance: I do not think they would disagree with me because they translated the word "enjoy" for the same Hebrew word used for the English word "saw" in Genesis 9:22. Ecclesiastes 2:1 says to "enjoy pleasure." Sex is pleasurable. So one could technically use it to say this in a sentence.

    The Bible uses synonyms. Words like "knew", "slept," "lay", etc. can all refer to sexual relations and yet if they are read with wooden literalism, they do not talk about sexual relations at all. Do you read literalism into these metaphorical words?

    Now, what will end this argument once and for all is Leviticus 20:17.

    Leviticus 20:17 says,
    "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."

    Look above here and see the words in "red." One says "see her nakedness" and then it says he hath "uncovered his sister's nakedness."

    In other words,

    See nakedness = uncovered nakedness.

    Also, the NIV says this is sexual relations.

    Leviticus 20:17 (NIV) says,
    'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."

    This is confirmed as being sexual relations in other translations, too; Such as the: CSB, CEB, CJB, ERV, EXB, GNT, GWT, HCSB, ICB, TLB, MSG, NOG, NABRE, NCV, NET, NLT, VOICE.

    As for Cain and Abel: There is a parallel between "Cain and Abel’s Story" vs. "the Story of Noah and Ham":

    In the beginning, God sets forth a command by telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful and to multiply. Yet, the devil is seeking to destroy the first family (and destroy God's first command) by having Cain kill Abel. In the story of Noah and Ham, the devil is seeking to destroy the family again (so as to prevent man to be fruitful and multiply in the way God wants); So the devil uses a different tactic: Alcohol and incest (i.e. creating bad seed). But it backfires yet again. God has Noah curse the descendants of this incestous relationship (Canaan) and they are wiped out by God later in Exodus.

    The only verse that is suggestive to your interpretation is verse 21 where it says,

    "and he [i.e. Noah] was uncovered within his tent." (Genesis 9:21).​

    But as I pointed out before, if one reads the scene with the proper understanding on the metaphorical phrases used here (i.e. his father's nakedness = his father's wife from Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11), one understands that Ham slept with Noah’s wife: This then changes the facts presented to us. So then what about the nakedness of Noah in this scene with this particular understanding?

    First, Noah was clearly naked because he had sexual relations with his wife. How so? Well, in real life, husbands naturally sleep with their wives when they have been drinking. So it would not be unusual for Noah to be naked and to have sex with his wife if he was drunk and he slept next to her. In fact, Noah was given a recent command by God, “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 9:1). So if Noah was not getting busy at spreading like rabbits than he would have been disobeying God.

    Second, Noah’s nakedness speaks of authority (which plays an important part of our story). For Noah’s nakedness is an expression of authority or possession over his wife’s body; Just as Noah’s body was his wife’s possession. For it is written, “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.” (1 Corinthians 7:4) (NIV). This is why read in Leviticus 18:8 says, “The nakedness of thy father's wife… is thy father's nakedness.” 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. However, sometimes this authority is usurped by others either through rape, incest, or adultery. For example: Reuben had slept with his father's concubine to usurp his father’s authority; Also, Absalom slept with David's concubines in public to usurp his father’s authority. This then makes the nakedness of Noah all the more clear. Noah is not only naked, but he is passed out drunk, leaving him in a vulnerable state; And Ham takes advantage of that by sleeping with his wife. Ham no doubt knew his father would pass out because of his drinking and he seized the opportunity to usurp his father’s authority (by sleeping with his wife) so as to humiliate him and gain power. But Ham's plan backfires. When Noah wakes up, either by a prophetic dream or by the Spirit of prophecy (i.e. having knowledge from God), Noah declares a curse on Canaan and says that Canaan’s descendants would be a servant to the descendants of his two brothers (Shem and Japheth) (See Genesis 9:25-27).

    Well, you said before I was thinking in terms of being like a Westerner and I was not understanding what is really going on here. I would like to know what makes you think that.

    In any event, I hope this helps you to see where I am coming from.
    May God bless you;
    And may you grow in the power of His might.

    With loving kindness to you in Christ.

    Sincerely,

    ~ Jason.




    ….
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2017
  9. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Again, I will repost the words for you again in color; I will also increase the size of the key words, as well.

    Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
    Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
    Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
    Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
    (Matthew 15:1-9).

    See Matthew 15:4-6, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42.

    What are you talking about? The Pharisees during Christ's ministry did not worship him. Israel rejected their Messiah. Yes, certain Jews like his disciples had followed him, but not all Jews followed Jesus.

    See above verses within this post.

    You are most welcome;
    And may the Lord bless you and keep you in all things.



    ...
     
  10. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Well, I will not hate you, my friend. I am commanded by God (within His Word) to love even my enemies (Matthew 5:44).

    It's not a guess! Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11, and Leviticus 20:17 give us the MEANING of the metaphorical language that is used in Genesis 9. Moses wrote all fives books of the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). In other words, Moses would have used a language that was consistent.

    For example: Imagine if a person named "Shacka" visits America for the first time. They know how to speak and write English, but they do not know about all of America's slang or figures of speech. Shacka hears a conversation between Rick and Bob. Rick says to Bob, how is Billy doing? "He is not with us anymore. I am sad to say that Billy, bought the farm, my friend" Now, Shacka could be easily confused and think that Billy actually purchased a farm and moved away or something. But little does poor Shacka know that the phrase "bought the farm" (Here in the land of the red white and blue) is a metaphorical phrase meaning to physically die.

    This is what is happening in Genesis 9 with most people here. They are reading the Story of Noah and Ham and they are reading the metaphors in this story as being literal when Moses gave us the meaning of these metaphors in Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11, and Leviticus 20:17.

    Please read these verses and you will discover several things.

    Both Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11 essentially give us a definition for a metaphorical phrase (i.e. slang).

    "his father's nakedness" = "his father's wife."

    Then in Leviticus 20:17 we see the following:

    "see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness;" = "he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness."

    So the word "see" = "unconver" in relation to nakedness.

    This is important because it relates to God's commands against incest in Leviticus 18 (Especially see Leviticus 18:8).

    Anyways, please check these verses for yourself before you reply.
    Prayerfully consider them in what they say.

    For the phrase "his father's nakedness" in Genesis 9 is like slang. It is a metaphor that has another meaning that is defined for us in Leviticus 18:8, Leviticus 20:11.

    The phrase: "see ... nakedness" in Genesis 9 relates to Leviticus 20:17.
    The words "see nakedness" is also like slang. It has a meaning that is not literal. It is a metaphor and it is defined for us in Leviticus!

    People are ignoring the meaning of these metaphors in Genesis 9 and are confused like Shacka.

    For example: Words like: "knew", "lay", and "slept" are all metaphors that are talking about sex in the Bible. Granted sometimes they can be used in a literal way but we know when it is metaphor and when it is not by looking at the context and cross references.

    Well, Genesis 9 does not record Ham's actions after he talks to his two brothers. The Scripture does not say he does nothing. It is merely silent on saying anything more about him. So this would not be a viable point or argument against my view on this story, my friend.

    Nowhere does the text say that the two brothers laid next to Noah on each side. The text merely says the following,

    "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).

    But again, when you read this verse, please realize that the phrase "the nakedness of their father" is a metaphorical phrase or slang for "his father's wife" as taken from Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11.

    Leviticus 20:17 relates seeing nakedness .... as..... uncovering nakedness.
    Please slowly read this verse over and over.
    Pray over it and ask God for the understanding here.

    So what about the mention of Noah being uncovered within his tent in Genesis 9:21?

    First, Noah was clearly naked because he had sexual relations with his wife. How so? Well, in real life, husbands naturally sleep with their wives when they have been drinking. So it would not be unusual for Noah to be naked and to have sex with his wife if he was drunk and he slept next to her. In fact, Noah was given a recent command by God, “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 9:1). So if Noah was not getting busy at spreading like rabbits than he would have been disobeying God.

    Second, Noah’s nakedness speaks of authority (which plays an important part of our story). For Noah’s nakedness is an expression of authority or possession over his wife’s body; Just as Noah’s body was his wife’s possession. For it is written, “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.” (1 Corinthians 7:4) (NIV). This is why read in Leviticus 18:8 says, “The nakedness of thy father's wife… is thy father's nakedness.” 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. However, sometimes this authority is usurped by others either through rape, incest, or adultery. For example: Reuben had slept with his father's concubine to usurp his father’s authority; Also, Absalom slept with David's concubines in public to usurp his father’s authority. This then makes the nakedness of Noah all the more clear. Noah is not only naked, but he is passed out drunk, leaving him in a vulnerable state; And Ham takes advantage of that by sleeping with his wife. Ham no doubt knew his father would pass out because of his drinking and he seized the opportunity to usurp his father’s authority (by sleeping with his wife) so as to humiliate him and gain power. But Ham's plan backfires. When Noah wakes up, either by a prophetic dream or by the Spirit of prophecy (i.e. having knowledge from God), Noah declares a curse on Canaan and says that Canaan’s descendants would be a servant to the descendants of his two brothers (Shem and Japheth) (See Genesis 9:25-27).

    We also see drunkeness and incest in a later story of Genesis, as well. In Genesis 19, we see Lot's two daughters getting their father drunk and they both got pregnant by him. What is interesting is that both Canaan's descendants and the descendants of Lot's two daughters were later wiped out by God. Comparing both the story of Noah and Ham vs. the story of Lot and his two daughters, we see there are several similarities. Three people were the focal point of the story involving drunkenness and incest. Drunkeness and incest took place after a miraculous judgment of God took place (i.e. the Flood and the Fires from Heaven upon Sodom and Gomora).

    But where in Scripture is there a story like the literalist's view on the story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9?
    Simply put, there is no other story like it.

    Also, when you examine the motives of the people within the story of Noah and Ham from the literalist view, nothing really makes any sense. Look at the text and pick apart the scene. Think like a detective and look at all the clues. Ask yourself, do people really behave like this in the real world? If you are honest with yourself, then the truth on this matter will become a little more clear to you.



    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2017
  11. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I addressed this in my recent post to you (i.e. Post #217).

    May God bless you.


    ...
     
  12. Joe Fizz

    Joe Fizz Active Member

    162
    +247
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    well Jason has a point though I wouldn't use the phrase"undid God's word" but there is truth to what he says of the pharisees,true they knew "how to do right by God"
    but they sought high seats ,power,and telling people what to do,over doing God's work,as Jason pointed out in a previous post"their hearts were far from God" as in they did what was right in the people's eyes and did merely what the"law" said,but they themselves were not "sincere" in that they followed God,they merely kept up appearances,so as to look as if they did right by God in the people's eyes,but God and Jesus many times in the bible point out that "sincerity" and "honesty" and "love" are more valuable than mere obedience,true to obey and hearken to God are valuable to God above sacrifice,but as Jesus said"the first great commandment is to love God with all thy,strength,heart,mind,and soul",so since they loved not God,they were against God.
     
  13. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +1,563
    Christian
    Private
    Habakkuk does not use the word in question so it is irresponsible to put so much emphasis on it and it should be dropped from the conversation.

    In Hab 2:15 Mr. Peterson certainly does paraphrase the text with more sexual explicit words however Mr. Peterson does not do this in Gen 9 when he clearly has proven to do it in many other cases. The Gen 9 text of the MSG says "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and told his two brothers who were outside the tent" To get a better understanding of Mr. Peterson thoughts on this the Lev 18:8 text in question is paraphrased as "Don’t have sex with your father’s wife. That violates your father." then the Lev 20:17 text "If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or mother, and they have sex, that’s a disgrace" It would seem resonable to infer that Mr. Peterson does not agree with your interpretation of the text.

    The MSG is a great example because it aims at capturing the meaning and feel of the text over the raw translation but this is the same in every other translation that also translated Lev 18:10/20:17 as sexual activity but does not for Gen 9. There is in fact not one translation that suggests sexual activity in Gen 9.

    Does Mr. Peterson's The Message read with "wooden literalism"? Does every translation read with "wooden literalism"? Because they all translate this in what you are calling "wooden".

    and what do these translations say about Gen 9? Do they also agree with translating this text as a sexual reference? If they are so free to translate the Lev 18 and 20 text as sexual relations then why not Gen 9?

    The word in question ra'ah/see/H7200 occurs over 1300 times in the bible. It is a common word that can have a more abstract or euphemistic meaning. The word is used 10 times with the word for nakedness (H6172) and not all are a sexual reference and can be abstract references for shame for example:

    Isa 47:3 says “Your nakedness will be uncovered, Your shame also will be exposed; I will take vengeance and will not spare a man.”

    this text is not talking about a sexual act it is about shame and shows there are contexts that are not about a sexual idiom. If we look at the Lev 20:17 it is much more clear regardless what translation is used because it is both brother and sister "seeing" each others nakedness and again a sexual intent is implied. The text seems to go out of its way to be clear so there is no confusion but the Gen 9 does not in fact it goes out of its way to not directly say Noah was uncovered so no sexual intent is implied or should be inferred.

    and you say I go outside of the bible to get my insights... where exactly do you get all that? I only meant to highlight the comparison as Abel's act was seen as rightness and Cain's was not and in the Gen 9 example Shem and Japheth's act is seen as rightness and Ham's is not and this seems to be a greater message of the text.

    nakedness was Noah's shame, as shown in the Isa 47:3 text shame can be a meaning of nakedness especially when exposed "seen" by someone else. I understand your perspective and what you are pointing to is an honor/shame system even when we see the details different. One thing we agree on is that Ham's intention was to shame and dishonor his father.

    westerner culture doesn't do well with unanswered questions. they will search for the answers and if they can't find them they will find all the ways possible to justify it to make sense of things. This is a classic example in Gen 9 where typical western mindset thinks the situation is too severe and doesn't make sense so this is where superfluous explanations come in to try and make sense of the text in a western box. For example surely Noah didn't curse his grandson simply because his son saw him naked... how absurd! there must be something here hidden that needs to be searched out and explained. But nothing needs to be explained or "fixed" and the event makes perfect sense in a honor/shame culture which westerners have a hard time reconciling. Talk to a honor/shame culture such as asian and they will tell you there is nothing odd about the text or wooden yet it makes perfect sense, right down to the curse without the need to put a sexual slant on it.

    I can concede that the event is on the surface unusual (at least for us westerners) and warrants a deeper look and a suspicion to the sexual is a possibility but when all the texts are studied the suspicion has little support and has clear marks of moving away from it. A study of the text I would suggest reveals itself as an event of honor/shame and moves away from a sexual sin which is easy to see from the right perspective.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  14. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.


    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  15. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You are mostly right, but the Pharisees did not keep God's laws. They ignored the weightier matters of the Law like love, justice, faith, and mercy (Matthew 23:23) (Luke 11:42).


    ...
     
  16. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +1,563
    Christian
    Private
    Lev 18 and 20 are not the issue and there is strong support and agreement if not complete agreement that these texts are talking about sexual relations and I agree with this as well. Please don't accuse me of changing words because I haven't once suggested that a word is incorrect and needs to be changed. Some translations choose a more dynamic approach and some don't yet none of them translate the Gen 9 text suggesting sexual relations and none of them cross references to Gen 9. Clearly scholars like Eugene Peterson have no issues with being more free with how they present the idea of the text yet no one takes this approach to Gen 9 not even Mr. Peterson.

    This must be confronted because if this in fact "what God's Word plainly says" as you boldly declare then why doesn't anyone support this? For example the NIV is a respected well used translation and it chooses not to use the words "uncover nakedness" or "see nakedness" but instead say plainly sex or sexual relations. However in Gen 9 they don't do this and simply say "saw his father naked". Now if someone was doing a study on these passages using the NIV they would see no connection to the text because the NIV has chosen to eliminate that these texts are related by the words they use. So the translators of the NIV would seem to disagree with your position otherwise why would they not be consistent in Gen 9 if this is so obvious?

    But none of this should be a surprise to you otherwise this wouldn't be posted in the controversial theology section of a Christian form. You are convinced this is talking about sex from the language used yet I have deconstructed each point of your logic to show why it does not. Lev 18 uses uncover to express intent but because uncover is used passively in Gen 9 there is no intent implied. Lev 20 uses "see nakedness" in a mutual way to express intent, ie. the brother seeing his sister and the sister seeing her brother; the text is going out of its way to be clear this is more than looking and it describes intent for sexual relations. Gen 9 does not do this and if its going out of its way to be clear that no sexual intent is present by passively using "uncover".

    Why fight so hard with what the text is trying to steer you away from? Why try and use translations as your proof then sweep it under the rug when they do not support this in Gen 9? This is irresponsible behaviour and they need to be addressed if you are going to be taken seriously.
     
  17. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Here is verse 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.” (Leviticus 20:17).​

    And here is verse 11:

    “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).​

    #1. Look at the words in red and the words in purple that are underlined.

    #2. Compare the enlarged red words with each other in each verse.

    #3. Then compare the one set of red and purple words with the other set of red and purple words for each verse.

    #4. Then compare both verses together.

    Verse 17 says:
    See nakedness = uncovered nakedness.

    Verse 11 says:
    Lieth (sex) with father's wife = uncovered father's nakedness.

    This to me is clear.

    May God bless you.


    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  18. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So...

    See = uncovered (Leviticus 20:17)
    See nakedness = uncovered nakedness (Leviticus 20:17)
    Lieth (sex) = uncovered nakedness (Leviticus 20:11)
    Father's wife = father's nakedness (Leviticus 20:11)

    Understanding these metaphors or the slang here in Leviticus is important to comprehending Genesis 9.


    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  19. Joe Fizz

    Joe Fizz Active Member

    162
    +247
    United States
    Christian
    Single
     
  20. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +4,866
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Again, you are off topic.
    This thread is not about me.


    ...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...