Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here's my idiom, SBC sounds more like Shem and Japheth on the matter and you sound like Ham dancing around making something out of nothing .
So where in the text did Ham dance around?
Where in the text did Ham make something out of nothing?
...
I must have read something some where else and just decided to tie it in to the story ..
Also, it is not true that I am not making nothing out of this whole thing, as well.
I have been relating the story of Ham and Noah to Jesus within this thread.
Jesus is definitely not nothing in my opinion.
...
Drunkenness has always been sinful in both the Old and New Covenants. But obviously Noah would have repented of this because of what happened between Ham and his wife.[/QUOTE]True; And he was also naked.[/QUOTE
Yep.
The text does not really say that. But it is possible.
The text says ALL THREE sons entered Noah's tent. Of course that put them in the vicinity of Noah's tent.
Yes, so why cover his nakedness if he was in the privacy of his own tent?
This interpretation only works if you ignore the Bible's use of slang or metaphors that is given to us in Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 18:7.
Scripture teaches to TRUST God. That is what I TRUST. All the slang, metaphors, not literal, etc. is mankind's philosophical introductions, because of their lack of understanding.
If so, then how did Noah know about this as soon as he woke up?
Why would Ham brag about such a thing to his brothers?
Why would the brothers care to cover their father if he was in the privacy of his own tent?
Why curse Canaan for what Ham did?
Nothing makes sense in your version of the story.
My version is what scripture says. You want "speculative" responses from me; then want to determine if they make sense.
Scripture says what it says. Believe it or not.
The problem is that how did Noah know that his son was looking at him wrongfully?
Please hypothesize.
no.
The clue to Noah is; someone entered his tent WITH a covering, that was NOT in his tent when he went into his tent, and the someone covered him with such covering.
When no sin results from such things then surely God would not be against it.
But you are assuming that.
I thought before you said he was ashamed
Which again, does not make sense in your version of the story.
Who cares whether Noah is naked or not if he is in the privacy of his own tent. Nobody is going to see him in his tent.
Announced it to who?
The text says he told his 2 brothers.
This is why you not be a good criminal investigator. Knowing a person's motives is a key factor in understanding the truth.
But discovering the truth of what Ham actually did as recorded by the Bible is knowing how to properly interpret the Bible to figure that out.
There are many reasons why God may choose to omit certain facts from Scripture.
There are holes in your story that do not add up.
Which are all totally unrelated, right?
Do you know what cross references are?
....
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 Hebrew word "רָאָה" (ra'ah) for the English word "saw" in Genesis 9:22 can also mean, "enjoy" (whereby we can see 4 other references for it). So one can read it as saying, Ham enjoyed the "nakedness of his father" (i.e. his father's wife).
Strong's H72000
For we can see "his father nakedness" = "his father's wife" in Leviticus 20,
Leviticus 20:11
"And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:"
Here it is in the traditional text in red:
Gen 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:And here is the text with the words exchanged using Leviticus 20, and the alternate word "enjoyed" for the word "saw.":
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 9:20 "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, enjoyed his father's wife, 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 his father's wife; and their faces were backward, and they saw not his father's wife.
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."
the interpretation is ambitious but I think overreaches. Lev 18 tells us that the "nakedness" of our mother is comparable to the "nakedness" of our father (v7) and the "nakedness" of our father is the nakedness of our mother (v8). Preceding this it says to not uncover the "nakedness" of any blood relation (v6) and if you continue reading down the examples it likens the "nakedness" of your granddaughter(s) to be your "nakedness" (v10).
I would suggest that in the context of marriage there is a union with your bodies that if one is uncovered so too is the other and both share the shame of the other. So if Noah was shamed by his nakedness then his wife would be shamed as well. Generally speaking if one member of a family is shamed they all are shamed.
"nakedness" is a word for shame. Hebrew is a very concrete language and abstracts are developed through concrete concepts where in english we may use a more abstract word. In Hebrew the word is עֶרְוָה (ervah: H6172) which is a noun and the root is עָרָה (arah: H6168) which is a verb that means "to bare, pour out or expose" similar in english "nakedness" can be an abstract and may not literally express someone naked but rather someone exposed.
However I don't think the text is being cryptic here and Noah actually did get drunk and actually was naked in his tent and Noah's curse was justifiable. To me the text doesn't quite fit if we are talking about Ham impregnating his Mother, then coming out and bragging about it, and his brothers walk in backwards and cover their mother, then 9 months later Noah curses the child all euphemistically referring to "Noah's nakedness"
Ancient hebrew culture operated under a honor/shame culture. You would never do anything to shame your Father and the act of Ham telling his brothers his Father's position was disrespectful and shaming. If he were to honor his Father he probably wouldn't find himself in the tent to begin with but if he did for whatever reason he should have honored his Father in a similar manner that Shem and Japheth did then never spoke word of it to anyone (and if anyone asked to simply say his father is sleeping in his tent). In honor/shame cultures you do not shame your elders, ever! they don't get drunk they don't pass out and they don't expose themselves. It doesn't matter if they actually do these things, because of course they do, what matters is that you always present themselves in a position of honor and Ham did not do this.
Ham put his Father in a position of shame and because of this his punishment was shame. Children are everything in these cultures and bring honor to your household allowing your name to continue. By Noah cursing Canaan he was cursing Ham and putting shame over his entire household for all generations. Remember back at Leviticus 18 shame on children brings shame on their parents. Why curse Ham when you can do one better and curse all his descendants. This text is not only completely acceptable but predictable under the context of an honor/shame culture without having the need to be cryptic, but if we read it only through western eyes we lose it's meaning.
The idiom in Levticus 18:7 and Leviticus 20:11 still is true. It is not erased by what is said later. But even still, in Leviticus 18:10, a father sleeping with her own daughter is forbidden because she is genetically related. It is saying that the daughter is genetically releated to her father. Hence, why she is his own nakedness. They have similar traits physically when they are both nude. They are both of the same flesh. So the possession is different than say a husband and wife who are joined together in marriage. That kind of possession is different because they are not supposed to now be sleeping with close of kin. So the possesion between a husband and wife is different vs. the possession of a father and his daughter. It still does NOT change the idiom or figure of speech that is defined for us in the Bible. In other words, it is like you are coming along from another country and you are attempting to change the word "cool" within your culture because you prefer people to speak more literal. But life does not work that way. The Bible has figures of speech that it defines for us. You can ignore them or accept them. The choice is yours.
...
As an example of what you are saying here, our own English has an idiom we are all using here. We use it so casually we don't realize that it is an idiom, but it is.
It is not contrary to any law of God for a father to sleep with his daughter, or for two, or three, or five men to all sleep together. It IS contrary to God's law for a father to have sex with his daughter, or for two, three or five men to have sex with each other.
That simple expression "sleep with" is an English idiom to avoid directly saying "had sex with". In the older English Bible, they liked the word "know" for this purpose, or "had relations with".
LITERALLY, to "sleep with" is to lie down in the same bed, or on the same mat, or the same floor, or in the same tent, and it means just that: to fall asleep and to be asleep in each other's presence. It is never sinful in the Bible for two people of whatever sex or relation to sleep with each other, under any circumstance. Sleeping together is fine. It is fine, indeed, healthy, for parents to sleep with their babies. When kids climb into their parents bed, it is normal for parents to sleep with their kids. I slept with my grandmother all the time.
It's once the idiom "sleep with" is used to mean "had sex with" that things become confusing - but not really confusing to native speakers.
And that's the grand point of this later part of this thread. "Saw his father's nakedness" has nothing to do with his father having no clothes on. It's an idiom that means "had sex with his father's wife". It is not proper to translate it "literally", because the "literal" translation is not what the text SAYS.
I can see it now....
Noah has a few to many & retires to his tent.
Ham checks to make sure no one is watching & pokes his head through the flap.... then go finds his brothers...
Ham: Yoah dudes, I like tottaly saw dads peepee!
Shem" Gross dude...
Japheth" What is wrong with you dude....?
Shem & Japheth grab a blanket & go into the tent where Noah is alone & toss it over him.. incase anyone of the other 4 people currently alive on the 3rd rock from the sun might possibley wander by & stick their head in also.
Noah wakes up and stumbles out of the tent screaming "Ham you lil ****.. I know what you did.. Your Kids gonna die for this.. in fact all your kids, grandkids,.. great grandkids into infinity.. their all gonna die cause you saw my todger! That will teach you! "
Yeah... makes total sense......
SBC said:All three of Noah's sons were in the vicinity of Noah's tent.
Jason0047 said:The text does not really say that. But it is possible.
The text says ALL THREE sons entered Noah's tent. Of course that put them in the vicinity of Noah's tent.
Jason0047 said:Yes, so why cover his nakedness if he was in the privacy of his own tent?
This interpretation only works if you ignore the Bible's use of slang or metaphors that is given to us in Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 18:7.
You said:Scripture teaches to TRUST God. That is what I TRUST. All the slang, metaphors, not literal, etc. is mankind's philosophical introductions, because of their lack of understanding.
You said:My version is what scripture says. You want "speculative" responses from me; then want to determine if they make sense. Scripture says what it says. Believe it or not.
You said:no.
The clue to Noah is; someone entered his tent WITH a covering, that was NOT in his tent when he went into his tent, and the someone covered him with such covering.
You said:No, I said flat out " Nowhere does the text say that Ham was invited into his father's tent."
You said:Nope.
You said:You can disagree with me agreeing with scripture all day long. That has no affect on me.
Jason0047 said:Who cares whether Noah is naked or not if he is in the privacy of his own tent. Nobody is going to see him in his tent.
You said:Did you not notice scripture saying Noah's son saw him. How is that Noah being alone?
You said:Announce IS telling.
You said:Is that what's going on? A criminal investigation, with speculative motives, in hopes to convict a man who has been dead hundreds of years?
You said:Whom do you believe has ALL knowledge, ALL wisdom, ALL understanding that he is qualified to properly interpret the Bible to figure out that which is not written?
Jason0047 said:There are many reasons why God may choose to omit certain facts from Scripture.
You said:And it is per your criminal investigation, you are appointed to fill in the holes?
You said:Did you not read, I was speculating?
You said:No more will I answer your silly questions.
You said:Here is the story I have said I believe:
Gen 9:
[18] And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
[19] These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
[20] And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
[21] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
[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.
[24] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
[25] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
[26] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
[27] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant
You said:God Bless,
SBC
Do you know what TRUTH is?
You said:Do you know what ADDING to Scripture is?
You said:You have said multiple times Ham slept with his father's wife.
Reveal the scripture that says that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?