My first introduction into the complexity of The Bible and potential translations comes in the form of the Curse of Ham. I see that there are many interpretations of what exactly Ham did. What do you think Ham did?
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What do you think Ham did?
- Thread starter justinithewriterguy
- Start date
Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It seems to me quite plain from the text:
"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." He looked on his father's nakedness and made a moral accusation.
I know most people say that Noah cursed Ham, but I have come to believe something slightly different. It says in Gen 9:25:
"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
I'm sure many others may disagree with me here because this is not the common Christian teaching, but I believe Noah's statement was not an action as much as it was an observation. I think he realized what Ham had done and RECOGNIZED that he WAS cursed. Re-read that verse again with that in mind and you may see what I mean. The reason I say this is because what Ham did was basically look at Noah's nakedness and then make an accusation, much like what had been done sometime earlier...
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (I'm sure you recognize the Adam and Eve story here).
So, I wonder if Noah in Gen 9:25 was actually recognizing an evil trait that had been passed on through from Adam and Eve.
To me, that's the basic sin we all carry over from the fall...we choose to decide what's right or wrong in our own heads, instead of yielding to God's moral standards.
Upvote
0
Willie T
St. Petersburg Vineyard
- Oct 12, 2012
- 5,325
- 1,820
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You don't think it was due to the simple disrespect Ham showed by hanging out his father's dirty wash for Shem and Japheth to see? (Putting Dad's business on the streets in ridicule?).... while the other two brothers acted in considerate respect.
Upvote
0
Funny... this is the second time today I've seen this question... the first to assert that many Christians are racist because of this curse.
Ham looked upon his fathers nakedness after getting him drunk.... and bragged about it, thus getting Caanan in the dog house...
All this was washed away with Jesus though wasn't it?
Aloha..
Upvote
0
~Anastasia~
† Handmaid of God †
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,132
- 17,447
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, I first want to agree that many times I find a bit of ambiguity, and that can be by design. And because I see something different than another person does not make either of us wrong (assuming there is no direct conflict). I'm speaking for the idea that a number of truths can be learned from a single incident. If I'm not mistaken, the rabbinical tradition holds that this is to be expected.
So I'm not arguing, btw.
In this passage, when I consider (as well as I am able to understand) the meanings implied in the Hebrew, I think that there is some shamefulness implied in Noah's state. Not only that he was simply undressed. And it appears that Ham entered his tent and saw this, then made it an especial point to stand before his brothers and proclaim their father's shame. And this part is my conjecture, but I can imagine this happening with pride on Ham's part as well as derision of his father. Even if I'm wrong on that part, it doesn't change the fact that his act was supremely disrespectful of his father, which is (1) very bad in the patriarchal tradition, (2) an important enough issue to God that it was prohibited as part of the 10 Commandments later given to Moses, and (3) given that God chooses the metaphor of father to illustrate His relationship to His followers, a supreme picture of disrespect and rebellion.
In my reading, it does sound to me as if Ham was singled out for the curse, as opposed to his brothers. Whether Noah cursed his son, or recognized God's curse, the effect would be the same. It could also be argued the CAUSE is the same, since I believe prophetic utterances have their effect through God and are supposed to be speaking the mind of God in any case, but that gets fuzzier.
I do find the parallel with the fall to be interesting. I've never thought of it before, and it may very well be an intended additional layer of meaning, since it ties together well and provides a picture/explanation, and I so often see Scripture enlightening our understanding in this manner.
So I'm not arguing, btw.
In this passage, when I consider (as well as I am able to understand) the meanings implied in the Hebrew, I think that there is some shamefulness implied in Noah's state. Not only that he was simply undressed. And it appears that Ham entered his tent and saw this, then made it an especial point to stand before his brothers and proclaim their father's shame. And this part is my conjecture, but I can imagine this happening with pride on Ham's part as well as derision of his father. Even if I'm wrong on that part, it doesn't change the fact that his act was supremely disrespectful of his father, which is (1) very bad in the patriarchal tradition, (2) an important enough issue to God that it was prohibited as part of the 10 Commandments later given to Moses, and (3) given that God chooses the metaphor of father to illustrate His relationship to His followers, a supreme picture of disrespect and rebellion.
In my reading, it does sound to me as if Ham was singled out for the curse, as opposed to his brothers. Whether Noah cursed his son, or recognized God's curse, the effect would be the same. It could also be argued the CAUSE is the same, since I believe prophetic utterances have their effect through God and are supposed to be speaking the mind of God in any case, but that gets fuzzier.
I do find the parallel with the fall to be interesting. I've never thought of it before, and it may very well be an intended additional layer of meaning, since it ties together well and provides a picture/explanation, and I so often see Scripture enlightening our understanding in this manner.
Upvote
0
Joshua260
Well-Known Member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 1,448
- 42
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I appreciate your feedback, Kylissa. Yeah, I admit that I may be wrong about what I suggest, but it may be on a different level as you point out (which is one of the characteristics about the bible that I think is awesome!). But yeah, the language is similar, and I think intriguing. Thanks again...I've wondered what other Christians may think about that.
Upvote
0
~Anastasia~
† Handmaid of God †
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,132
- 17,447
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Actually, I didn't exactly see it that you may be wrong, if you meant whether Noah was recognizing / proclaiming or prophesying / cursing - I guess what I mean is that it's possible it can be BOTH at the same time, if you subscribe to the idea that prophesying SHOULD BE speaking forth the mind of God.
So it's possible to be both at the same time, is what I was allowing.
Of course, it could also be intended to mean strictly one or the other as well.
But I really enjoyed your insight.
So it's possible to be both at the same time, is what I was allowing.
Of course, it could also be intended to mean strictly one or the other as well.
But I really enjoyed your insight.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
