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

Rhapsody · Jul 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
So What Really Happened in Noah's Tent After the Flood?

Here is the story in Genesis 9.

Gen 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 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.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

Leviticus 18:7 says,

"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."

So we have:

Thy father's wife = thy father's nakedness.

So when Genesis 9:22 says,

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, "

It is saying that the nakedness of his father (Noah) was Noah's wife.
It is talking about Noah's wife!
This is done for the obvious reason so as not to humilate her within the Scriptures.

Also, why was Canaan cursed?

Because God's written Word shows us that sleeping with one's mother is punishable by death!

Leviticus 20:11 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.."

We also have to realize here that discovering "nakedness" is a euphemism for sexual relations. This makes Genesis 9 all the more clear.

So if we were to summarize the story in these verses:

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine.
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk and passes out naked (more than likely because he got frisky with his wife as a result of his drunkenness).
Gen 9:22 Ham (father of Canaan is highlighted) seeing that his father is incapacitated makes advances on his mother. After all, sex is pleasurable, men tend to desire multiple partners, not many women are available after a global flood, and his mother is probably still attractive due to pre-flood aging conditions. He gloats of his conquest to his brothers.
Gen 9:23 The brothers try damage control. They cover up their mother (is she drunk also?). The Bible tends to omit relevant facts about woman in Genesis (what was her name?).
Gen 9:24 Noah comes back into consciousness and finds out or realizes that his wife was violated by Ham.

***[A Lapse or a Gap in Time]***
(For an example of an unexplained gap in time, see Matthew 3:13 and compare with Matthew 2)

Gen 9:25-26 Then Noah curses Canaan and or the new nation that will be formed from this union.

The verse 22 highlighting of Ham as Canaan’s father makes sense if the Jewish reader understood the incestuous origin of Canaan. This would also be an anachronistic clarification that would be very helpful to the reader in this circumstance. Otherwise, it makes very little sense.

In Summary, the literalist story is different:

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine.
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk.
Gen 9:22 Ham walks into Noah’s tent and sees him naked. Ham then has perverted thoughts or has some sort of debased enjoyment (Literalists claim this with no textual evidence).
Gen 9:23 The brothers walk into the tent backwards and cover up their naked father.
Gen 9:24 Noah comes back into consciousness and figures out that Ham saw him naked (how? The text does not tell, so the literalist must think this happened by magic).
Gen 9:25-26 He curses a baby/child/young boy for the sin of the father presumably because the son was wicked (though the text never indicates this).

Note the time lapse between verses 24 and 25 in this version as well. Did Noah wake up, realize what had happened and then proclaim a curse all without talking to the brothers or even leaving the tent? Some sort of time lapse is indicated in the sentence. Storytellers use time lapses for convenience.

In short, those who claim that Ham merely saw his father naked have no explanation for Canaan’s curse and end up claiming that God curses children for the sins of their fathers. They also end up believing that multi-generational curses can be levied for mere sight of something that naturally occurs in human beings (nakedness). They also violate their own interpretation rules with candor. The facts point to Canaan being the result of an incestuous relationship between Noah’s wife and Ham.

In fact, we see this event repeated in the Bible elsewhere.

Lot's Daughters get Lot drunk and they take advantage of him and they get pregnant. God destroyed both the nations (offspring) of the result of Canaan and from the two daughters of Lot. Death is the punishment for incest according to God's Word (Leviticus 20:11).

Source Used:
was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

...

The Bible is open about human mistakes, unlike other ancient histories, in which they will paint those that were supposed to be great in their best light. The trend isn't for authors to hide a persons foolishness from sight.

The mistakes in the lives of Christians become forgiven, which is what Noah likely sought for himself and his family after the results of drinking were over with.

This still appears to be an incident in Noah's life, and if this case were about his wife, the writer was capable of saying so, just like he did in the other stories in Genesis that involved couples

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Vicomte13 said:
Ham had sex with his mother, and that gave rise to the child, Cainan, by his mother. That's why even though it was Ham who "saw his father's nakedness", Noah cursed Cainan, the child of union that proved it happened.

Unfortunately the perfect symmetry of this explanation, which makes the most sense giving the Jewish idiom (to "uncover the nakedness" of somebody was to sleep with that person, or that person's spouse), is broken by the fact that Japheth and Shem are said to have walked backwards to not look, and covered their father's nakedness. That certainly doesn't fit the "Ham slept with Na'amah" thought that would make the nakedness business make sense.

The words "father's nakedness" is another way of saying Noah's wife. Leviticus 20:11 says,

"And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness" (Leviticus 20:11).

...

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Rhapsody said:
The Bible is open about human mistakes, unlike other ancient histories, in which they will paint those that were supposed to be great in their best light. The trend isn't for authors to hide a persons foolishness from sight.

Not true. There are many sins that do not go recorded by even the great men of God in the Bible. We do not see a second by second play of the entire life of any person of God in Scripture.

But I believe in this case, the sin involving Ham and what he did to Noah's wife was embarrassing to Noah and his family. So God hid this event in plain sight for only a select few to see (i.e. Those who are are aware of the Bible's special phrases or idioms). God did this because Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord back in Genesis 6. For not all men are able to handle such a message and or neither are they able to treat such an event with respect (Especially atheists).

You said:
The mistakes in the lives of Christians become forgiven, which is what Noah likely sought for himself and his family after the results of drinking were over with.

I do not deny God's grace is there for all men.

You said:
This still appears to be an incident in Noah's life, and if this case were about his wife, the writer was capable of saying so, just like he did in the other stories in Genesis that involved couples

God's Word is not obligated to bend to how we wish it to be.
We have to accept God's Word as it is written (Which would include it's idioms or figures of speech).
Many times people go with what their pastor says or what the Bible believing churches say as a whole.
When instead, they should ask God for the understanding.
When instead, they should compare Scripture with Scripture.

Anyways, please read Leviticus 20:11 and then read the words "father's nakedness" in the story of Genesis 9 as how Leviticus 20:11 interprets the words "father's nakedness." That is the idiom. You either accept the Bible's idioms to understand what the Bible says, or you reject them. The choice is yours.

....

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Lulav said:
So far so good.

Yes it is but that doesn't necessarily mean that was the case here.

Canaan was the result of Ham's relationship with his father's wife. That doesn't necessarily mean that it was his mother. It is most probable that Noah's wife at that time was not the mother of the three boys but instead a second or even third wife.

This also may explain why Canaan was cursed and how they ended up being the enemy of Israel.

Jacob had two wives and they each had a concubine. His first son Reuben went into his fathers bed with his concubine Bilhah. She was not his mother but she was considered his' Fathers wife.

Only if one does not want the scene to not make sense, then one will ignore the idiom in Leviticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11.

For it makes no sense to punish the son of a father for the crimes of the father here.
The only thing that makes sense is that Canaan is a byproduct of incest.

According to the Written Law (at the time of Moses), the punishment for such a crime of incest between a mother and son was death. Obviously God does not want offspring to take place between father and daughter and mother and son. It's one of the reasons why the Canaanites were wiped out. We see it again with Lot and his two daughters, too. Lot was seduced by his own two daughters with wine and they got pregnant by him. The Midianites were the by-product of that incest or sinful union and they were also wiped out by God.

...

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Victory-N-Christ said:
I agree.Uncovering a nakedness can also mean "shaming" someone and I'd go further and say that in my opinion it could also mean exposing someone's weakness.

It does not make any sense to have two meanings for one idiom or metaphorical phrase in the Bible. Verses please.

Leviticus 20:11 is clear. It says that uncovering the father's nakedness is in reference to mother and son incest (of which both should be put to death for such a crime).

...

Victory-N-Christ · Jul 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
It does not make any sense to have two meanings for one idiom or metaphorical phrase in the Bible. Verses please.

Leviticus 20:11 is clear. It says that uncovering the father's nakedness is in reference to mother and son incest (of which both should be put to death for such a crime).

...

Didn't I say that you have given me a different way of looking at the Noah and Ham story in Genesis? Everything else that I've added to this thread was my way of being open and trying to explore this difference.I'm not taking cheap shots.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

SBC said:
Many "nations" have civil laws forbidding public nudity.
Many peoples of many nations hold spiritual convictions against nudity, except between a husband and wife.

I am not talking about public nudity. Neither is the story of Noah in Genesis 9 talking about public nudity.
Noah was naked in his tent. We can assume his wife was with him in his tent, too. I mean, where was she in all of this?

You said:
In the privacy of ones Home, a particular room in the home; what people "customarily" do, and with whom; is of their own devices and choosing.

Most parents find it normal to bath their children. Sometimes when parents go camping, there are shower rooms where the father and son can share the same shower room and it is not strange. After all, they grew up together and shared things together. This is what makes this scene as described by some Pastors as not making any kind of sense. It does not take into account normal every day family living. It ignores it. For where else do we see a similar or somewhat related incident like this taking place again in the Bible?

You said:
Nothing whatsoever in Scripture teaches nudity outside of being between a husband and wife is acceptable.

So I guess bathing one's child as a baby is out then.

You said:
For those whom it is "customary" to agree with and follow Scriptural teachings publically or privately; that is of their own devices and choosing; same as you can choose what is "customary" for yourself and household.

My point is that it is a common thing among familes; And it is not considered strange. There is nothing nefarious happening because they are seeing each other as family.

You said:
It is not a secret; Noah was a man who followed after Gods teachings;

I am not in disagreement with Noah being a great man of God. Noah was a preacher of righteousnes indeed. But as you know, he was not perfect and he sinned by getting drunk.

You said:
It is not a secret; Ham was not invited into his fathers tent, but did so enter and shamed His father.

Nowhere does the text say that Ham was not allowed in his father's tent.

You said:
It is not a secret; Ham was pronounced to also receive shame from his own youngest son.

God Bless,
SBC

Where does the Bible say that Ham was ashamed?
Again, why punish the son for the father's sins?

....

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Victory-N-Christ said:
Didn't I say that you have given me a different way of looking at the Noah and Ham story in Genesis? Everything else that I've added to this thread was my way of being open and trying to explore this difference.I'm not taking cheap shots.

Okay. Thank you.

...

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Adam and Eve were given a command to be fruitful and to multiply and to have dominion (rule) over the Earth. The devil seeked to attack this command of God by attacking the family. He had Cain kill Abel.

After Noah came out of the Ark, God gave a command to Noah and his sons to be fruitful and to multiply and to replenish the Earth. Again, the devil seeked to attack this command by attacking the family by having Ham sleep with his own mother.

...

SBC · Jul 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Leviticus 20:11 is clear. It says that uncovering the father's nakedness is in reference to mother and son incest (of which both should be put to death for such a crime).
...

Verse please that Ham uncovered his father's "anything".

God Bless,
SBC

Vicomte13 · Jul 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Where does the Bible say that Ham was ashamed?
Again, why punish the son for the father's sins?

Because the Son, Cainan, was the fruit of the sexual union between Ham and his mother, Noah's wife.

Ham saw his father's nakedness, meaning he had sex with his father's wife, his own mother.

Noah "found out about it"...and cursed Cainan, not Ham. Why? Why curse Cainan and not Ham? Because Cainan was the product of incest between Ham and Noah's own wife.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Also, have you ever heard of the "law of first mention" in the Bible? Well, if you haven't, the "law of first mention" is said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine, truth, event, or word is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine or truth. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine (or truth) in other portions of the Word that were given later. The fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine. In view of this fact, it becomes imperative that we understand the law of first mention.

The book of Genesis has Properly been called the "seed-plot" of the Bible. The word, Genesis, comes from the Greek expression which in its verbal form means to begin, or, to come into existence. This first book of the revelation of God is properly called, therefore, "the book of beginnings."

In Genesis 9, most people believe that Noah got drunk, and naked, which resulted in his two sons covering their father's nakedness. They believe that in the story of Noah's drunkenness in Genesis chapter 9, Ham had uncovered his father's nakedness which then caused Noah to curse Ham's son (Canaan). While this story is partially true in the fact that Noah got drunk and was naked within his tent, most don't bother to ask the question: "Why would Noah curse Ham's child Canaan for what Ham did?"

Well, I believe the fog lifts from the riddle of this question when we read Leviticus 20:11. For in this verse we learn that if one lieth with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness. So the phrase "uncovered his father's nakedness" is in relation to sleeping with one's father's wife. In other words, Ham had uncovered Noah's nakedness (i.e. his father's nakedness) by sleeping with Noah's wife. Now, whether Noah's wife enticed Ham or whether Ham forced himself upon his own mother is not spoken of within the text of Genesis 9. It just says Ham uncovered his father's nakedness (Which would mean the nakedness of Noah's wife if we were to apply the Biblical terminology as spoken of in Leviticus 20:11).

However, if we are to ignore the terminology in Leviticus 20:11, and we are to regard the text as only speaking of Noah and not his wife, then we do have to ask several questions, though.

#1. "Why didn't Noah curse Ham instead of Canaan?"
#2. "Why did Noah's sons cover their father's nakedness if he was uncovered within his tent?
#3. "Why didn't Noah have any more children with his wife? (Genesis 10:1 KJV)"

In fact, if we were to look in Scripture at other related places in the Bible we would see similar instances of drunkenness and sexual immorality taking place. For example: We see Lot's daughters enticing their father with wine and they fornicated with him.

This is also a parallel of what is happening now and what will continue take place all the way up to the End Times when Jesus returns, too. For Mystery Babylon (The spiritual harlot church) who is described as a woman has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication (Revelation 14:8 KJV); And this woman is drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6 KJV).

This is important to note that it is the nations that fornicated with this spiritual harlot who is drunk with the blood of the saints because the result of the sin of Noah's son Ham had caused a ripple effect of sin into his future generation of children from his fornication with his own mother (which resulted in Canaan and the Canaanites); And the Israelites were later commanded by God to destroy the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 20:17 KJV) for their pagan worship of other gods (Deuteronomy 7:3–5) (Deuteronomy 12:2,3) (Exodus 34:12,13); For these Canaanites were obviously the offspring of Canaan which were the result of an act of sin.

The same thing resulted from the drunkenness and fornication that was caused by Lot's daughters. One of their sons, whose name was Moab, had ended up being the father of the Moabites (Genesis 19:37 KJV) and at times, the Moabites were great enemies of Israel. For it was the Balak, king of Moab, who hired Balaam the prophet, hoping that he could curse Israel (Numbers 22-25). It was Eglon, king of Moab, who oppressed Israel in the days of the Judges (Judges 3:12-30). During the time of Saul and David, Israel established a firm control over Moab, but later kings of Israel were not always able to keep them under Israeli dominance; And thus, they were a thorn in the side of God's people.

Source:
Biblical Research Studies Group-The Law of First Mention
Enduring Word Bible Commentary Isaiah Chapter 15

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Vicomte13 said:
Because the Son, Cainan, was the fruit of the sexual union between Ham and his mother, Noah's wife.

Ham saw his father's nakedness, meaning he had sex with his father's wife, his own mother.

Noah "found out about it"...and cursed Cainan, not Ham. Why? Why curse Cainan and not Ham? Because Cainan was the product of incest between Ham and Noah's own wife.

Ah, okay. I thought you were disagreeing with me before.
I gotcha now.
We are in agreement.
Thank you.
May God bless you.

...

Colter · Jul 16, 2017

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

SBC said:
Verse please that Ham uncovered his father's "anything".

God Bless,
SBC

This idiom "the father's nakedness" explains several other passages in the Bible as well. Without this explanation the following verses may be hard to understand.

1 Sa 20:30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

Eze 16:36 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;

Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Side Note:

Oh, and to see one's nakedness is the same as uncovering that nakedness.
For to uncover something means to see something that was once previously covered (but is not currently covered). For example: If my legs were covered with a blanket, you could not see them. But if I uncovered my legs by taking the blanket away, you could then see my legs. So to "uncover" is a similar idiom for saying to "see."

Also, there are other idioms for sexual relations in the Bible, such as "knew" and "slept", as well.
Do we read these verses as literal? Surely not. The context determines their use.

Source:
was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Colter said:

Apply Jeremiah 33:3 and then re-read what I had posted and look at the verses for yourself; Especially Leviticus 20:11.

...

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

4x4toy said:
I agree but my point was can Noahs curse be effective without Gods sanction, just curious

Surely not. But we can see that God did sanction Noah cursing Canaan by the fact that we see the Canaanites wiped out later by God's command.

It would seem kind of hollow and empty if a people group were wiped out later on in the future merely because Noah wanted to attack the innocent son of Ham (Canaan) because of Ham's unrelated transgression (That is if the Literalists story is true here). But if Canaan was the by-product of incest: Then it makes more sense as to why Noah curses him and or his generations (and why we see the eradication of the Canaanites later on in history).

...

SeventyOne · Jul 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Surely not. But we can see that God did sanction Noah cursing Canaan by the fact that we see the Canaanites wiped out later by God's command.

It would seem kind of hollow and empty if a people group were wiped out later on in the future merely because Noah wanted to attack the innocent son of Ham (Canaan) because of Ham's unrelated transgression (That is if the Literalists story is true here). But if Canaan was the by-product of incest: Then it makes more sense as to why Noah curses him and or his generations (and why we see the eradication of the Canaanites later on history).

...

It was through Canaan the giants repopulated the land, the Amorites, Emim, Raphaim, Anakim, etc. That's why they were wiped out.

4x4toy · Jul 16, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Surely not. But we can see that God did sanction Noah cursing Canaan by the fact that we see the Canaanites wiped out later by God's command.

It would seem kind of hollow and empty if a people group were wiped out later on in the future merely because Noah wanted to attack the innocent son of Ham (Canaan) because of Ham's unrelated transgression (That is if the Literalists story is true here). But if Canaan was the by-product of incest: Then it makes more sense as to why Noah curses him and or his generations (and why we see the eradication of the Canaanites later on in history).

...

And God cursed Miriam to death for speaking against Moses wife , simply speaking and probably just gossip or making fun ..

Bible Highlighter · Jul 16, 2017

Again, two keypoints to also keep in mind when reading this story in Genesis involving Noah and Ham is to understand that:

#1. Noah is said to be naked within his tent. Noah was more than likely naked (after being drunk) because he was intimate with his wife (because of the alcohol that he drank). For men who are drunk usually seek after sex with women (if they are near them and they are interested).

#2. After Noah wakes up somehow he magically or immediately knows what his son Ham had done unto him. How is this possible? Well, the only explanation is that God gave Noah a dream of what happened and what will happen. Hence, why Noah curses Canaan before he is even born.

...

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

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

God:Mighty -N-Power!!

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency