Why was Canaan cursed?

Gold Dragon · Mar 8, 2005

GreenEyedLady said:
Exept for the support of Leviticus and Dueteronmy which does support it!

I haven't read Leviticus and Deuteronomy in a while, but it would be enlightening to read the parts where it re-tells the story of Noah by explaining that Ham really slept with Noah's wife.

Both books do not mention Noah's name, Ham's name or Canaan's name except in reference to the land of Canaan.

ZiSunka · Mar 8, 2005

GreenEyedLady said:
I still do not see how you all can use the phrase, uncovered the fathers nakedness, as an unterpretation of being naked. Scripture points out in more passages that I listed.

GEL

Because it's NOT in the text of this story.

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." KJV

You keep saying that he uncovered his father's nakedness, but it's just not in there GEL. He saw his father's nakedness, but he didn't uncover it.

Why are you trying to put something in there that God didn't intend??

He didn't rape his father's wife, he just saw his father without clothes. There's a BIG difference!

Gold Dragon · Mar 8, 2005

Hi GEL, here is a parallel example for comparison.

Another euphemism for sex in Genesis is to "know".

KJV - Gen 4:1

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

KJV - Gen 4:17

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

KJV - Gen 4:25

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

The same Hebrew word was used in this passage.

KJV - Gen 42:8

And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.

Interpreting this as saying that Joseph had sex with his brothers based on those earlier uses of the word in Genesis would be a gross misinterpretation taking the word completely out of its context.

That is what is being done when one interprets that Ham's sin was sleeping with Noah's wife because the words uncover and nakedness appear in both the Noah story and the Levitical sexual laws.

How do we know that one usage of "knew" is about sex and another is just about knowing? We need to look at the context the word is found in. How do we know that one usage of "nakedness" is about sex and another is just about nakedness? We need to look at the context the word is found in.

GreenEyedLady · Mar 8, 2005

ok, I just do not feel like anyone here understands me.
I give up.

GEL

ZiSunka · Mar 8, 2005

GEL, we understand where you are coming from, and you are right, "uncovering someone's nakedness" does mean having sex with them, but in this passage, Ham didn't uncover his father's nakedness (meaning by having sex with his wife), he was already uncovered when Ham saw him, Noah had taken off his own clothing out of drunkeness. This is a literal nakedness, not a euphemism for sex.

Lockheed · Mar 9, 2005

I don't see any evidence that God cursed Canaan. Noah did all the cursing.

Lambslove,

Did or did not God abide by Noah's curse of Canaan? If Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" as Peter calls him, could this have been a prophetic word to Ham of God's judgment?

ZiSunka · Mar 9, 2005

Lockheed said:
Lambslove,

Did or did not God abide by Noah's curse of Canaan? If Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" as Peter calls him, could this have been a prophetic word to Ham of God's judgment?

Since when does God have to abide by our curses? We can certainly curse without God agreeing with it.

Or do you really think that every time someone says, (using God's name in vain) God really (curses) the person?

Lockheed · Mar 9, 2005

I'm asking, did God do what Noah warned would occur? Since only God has the power to do what Noah's cursed stated. Did Noah's curse come true?

ZiSunka · Mar 9, 2005

Lockheed said:
I'm asking, did God do what Noah warned would occur? Since only God has the power to do what Noah's cursed stated. Did Noah's curse come true?

You don't think humans can curse each other, that misery can only come through the consent of the Lord?

Besides, I can't find one reference where it says the curse did come true.

Lockheed · Mar 9, 2005

You don't think humans can curse each other, that misery can only come through the consent of the Lord?

No, its not that... it's that Canaan was cursed by Noah before he had anything to do with it. It wasn't Noah who made the curse come to pass, was it?

Besides, I can't find one reference where it says the curse did come true.

Is it your position then that Noah was acting sinfully in cursing Canaan?

Canaan's offspring were living in the land named for him when the people of Israel came there. When God gave the land of Canaan to the offspring of his uncles (Shem and Japeth), was this not a fulfillment of Noah's curse?

Do you believe that this is just coincidence?

ZiSunka · Mar 10, 2005

No, its not that... it's that Canaan was cursed by Noah before he had anything to do with it. It wasn't Noah who made the curse come to pass, was it?

Don't you think most curses are self-fulfilling? The person knows they've been cursed and they act like they are cursed?

Is it your position then that Noah was acting sinfully in cursing Canaan?

Sinfully? I don't know. Rashly? Definitely.

Canaan's offspring were living in the land named for him when the people of Israel came there. When God gave the land of Canaan to the offspring of his uncles (Shem and Japeth), was this not a fulfillment of Noah's curse?

Noah's curse was on Canaan, not all the offspring of Canaan. What happened 20 generations later was God providing for His people the Hebrews, not the result of Noah's curse.

Gold Dragon · Mar 10, 2005

lambslove said:
Noah's curse was on Canaan, not all the offspring of Canaan. What happened 20 generations later was God providing for His people the Hebrews, not the result of Noah's curse.

I don't think we can look to the curse as any sort of rule and the generational aspect of the curse may not have been explicit (other than Canaan being one generation after Ham), but I do believe there is some relationship between God giving the Israelites the land of Canaan and Noah's curse. How that relationship works is purely speculation.

Something else to keep in mind if we attribute the authorship of Genesis to Moses during the desert wanderings, is that the Israelites already knew that their promised land was that of the Canaanites from Abraham's day. So emphasizing Canaan's role in this story is pretty important to the Israelites at that time.

ZiSunka · Mar 10, 2005

Gold Dragon said:
I don't think we can look to the curse as any sort of rule and the generational aspect of the curse may not have been explicit (other than Canaan being one generation after Ham), but I do believe there is some relationship between God giving the Israelites the land of Canaan and Noah's curse. How that relationship works is purely speculation.

I've always thought that when a curse was multigenerational, it would say something like, "and to all/many (or name a number here) generations the same."

Gold Dragon · Mar 10, 2005

lambslove said:
I've always thought that when a curse was multigenerational, it would say something like, "and to all/many (or name a number here) generations the same."

Yes, Noah's curse wasn't explicitly multigenerational.

ZiSunka · Mar 10, 2005

Gold Dragon said:
Yes, Noah's curse wasn't explicitly multigenerational.

And the Canaanites weren't really the servants of Israel, and Noah's curse said that Canaan would serve Shem and Japheth, and the Israelites were only the decendants of one of them, not both. So, for this curse to be understood to have come true in the invasion of Canaan by Israel, you have to do a lot of assuming and adjusting. You have to assume it was a multigenerational curse, even though it doesn't follow the pattern of mulitgenerational curses, and you have to make allowances for the fact that the Israelites were the descendents of Shem but not Japheth. Also, the Canaanites didn't become the slaves or servants of the Hebrew, they just continued to live in the land God gave them and be a thorn in their side. I think that's too much of a stretch to be reasonable, so I just don't see how we are supposed to believe this curse ever came to pass.

Gold Dragon · Mar 10, 2005

lambslove said:
And the Canaanites weren't really the servants of Israel, and Noah's curse said that Canaan would serve Shem and Japheth, and the Israelites were only the decendants of one of them, not both. So, for this curse to be understood to have come true in the invasion of Canaan by Israel, you have to do a lot of assuming and adjusting. You have to assume it was a multigenerational curse, even though it doesn't follow the pattern of mulitgenerational curses, and you have to make allowances for the fact that the Israelites were the descendents of Shem but not Japheth. Also, the Canaanites didn't become the slaves or servants of the Hebrew, they just continued to live in the land God gave them and be a thorn in their side. I think that's too much of a stretch to be reasonable, so I just don't see how we are supposed to believe this curse ever came to pass.

Just an fyi that I have not assumed that this curse is multi-generational nor have I assumed that Israel's conquest of Canaan was a fulfillment of Noah's curse.

I simply suggested a relationship between the two events, probably having something to do with the Canaanites being Israel's enemy at the time of the writing.

ZiSunka · Mar 10, 2005

I understood that, GD. I just appreciate being able to discuss this with you in depth. Whenever something challenges my thinking like this, I like to explore what the Bible really says and how that is different (if at all) from what I or other people think it says.

My last post was more "thinking out loud" than it was anything else. I just wanted to bounce my ideas off you, because I know you are a logical thinker of faith.

Gold Dragon · Mar 10, 2005

lambslove said:
I understood that, GD. I just appreciate being able to discuss this with you in depth. Whenever something challenges my thinking like this, I like to explore what the Bible really says and how that is different (if at all) from what I or other people think it says.

My last post was more "thinking out loud" than it was anything else. I just wanted to bounce my ideas off you, because I know you are a logical thinker of faith.

Phew.

Fair enough. I think in defense of those who support the idea that conquering the land of Canaan was a fulfillment of Noah's curse, it could be considered that:

1) The Genesis narrative doesn't explicitly tell us if Noah's curse came to fulfillment in the lifetimes of Ham, Canaan, Shem and Japeth or how it was fulfilled if it did.

2) Israel conquering Canaan may have been part of the fulfillment. Japeth's share of having Canaan as a servant may have happened in a different time or a different group of Canaan's descendents.

3) I believe some Canaanites did become slaves of Israelites. There are many Levitical laws regarding the treatment of gentile slaves. Most were likely Canaanites.

Yes assumptions are needed but they are not unreasonable assumptions.

ZiSunka · Mar 10, 2005

Gold Dragon said:
Phew.

Fair enough. I think in defense of those who support the idea that conquering the land of Canaan was a fulfillment of Noah's curse, it could be considered that:

1) The Genesis narrative doesn't explicitly tell us if Noah's curse came to fulfillment in the lifetimes of Ham, Canaan, Shem and Japeth or how it was fulfilled if it did.

2) Israel conquering Canaan may have been part of the fulfillment. Japeth's share of having Canaan as a servant may have happened in a different time or a different group of Canaan's descendents.

3) I believe some Canaanites did become slaves of Israelites. There are many Levitical laws regarding the treatment of gentile slaves. Most were likely Canaanites.

Yes assumptions are needed but they are not unreasonable assumptions.

I see what you are saying. It's not very cause-and-effect, though. It starts from the assumption that the curse was fulfilled by Israel's occupation of the land, but if you look at it as beinh an historical account of God's fulfillment of His promise to Abraham, it takes on a different tone. God made a promise to Abraham that his descendents would own Canaan as a reward for his faith in God. Abraham believed God and it came true that his descendents many generations down the line did (and do) own Canaan.

So the question is, does Israel own Canaan because of Noah's curse, or because of God's promise? You really have to make a lot of assumptions and allowances to make it fit Noah's curse, but you can see in plain black-and-white that it fulfills God's promise.

So, I doubt Noah's curse is the reason that Canaan became the property of the Hebrews, and I'm sure that Canaan became their property because of God's promise to Abraham.

Gold Dragon · Mar 10, 2005

lambslove said:
I see what you are saying. It's not very cause-and-effect, though. It starts from the assumption that the curse was fulfilled by Israel's occupation of the land, but if you look at it as beinh an historical account of God's fulfillment of His promise to Abraham, it takes on a different tone. God made a promise to Abraham that his descendents would own Canaan as a reward for his faith in God. Abraham believed God and it came true that his descendents many generations down the line did (and do) own Canaan.

So the question is, does Israel own Canaan because of Noah's curse, or because of God's promise? You really have to make a lot of assumptions and allowances to make it fit Noah's curse, but you can see in plain black-and-white that it fulfills God's promise.

So, I doubt Noah's curse is the reason that Canaan became the property of the Hebrews, and I'm sure that Canaan became their property because of God's promise to Abraham.

Great points. I agree that God's promise to Abraham is the direct reason that the land of Canaan was conquered by Israel. However, I also am open to the possiblity that the choice of which land may have been related to Noah's curse, or that Noah's curse was prophetic of God's promise to Abraham.

I especially like your overall gist that, like the Jewish people, it is God's faithfulness to his promises that we should focus on.

We like to see events as cause-and-effect. That things work in linear fashion. This is understandable for the time-bound creatures that we are where time only has one direction. But for God who is not bound by time, the relationships of events may be more complicated.

Why was Canaan cursed?

Senior Veteran

It means 'yellow dog'

Senior Veteran

My little Dinky Doo

It means 'yellow dog'

Well-Known Member

It means 'yellow dog'

Well-Known Member

It means 'yellow dog'

Well-Known Member

It means 'yellow dog'

Senior Veteran

It means 'yellow dog'

Senior Veteran

It means 'yellow dog'

Senior Veteran

It means 'yellow dog'

Senior Veteran

It means 'yellow dog'

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency