Why did God curse Ham's Son?

[BeauJangles]

Why did God curse Ham's Son?

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

But why did Noah curse Canaan only of all Ham's children?

Good question. Perhaps when Noah came to, he had one doozy of a hangover? 

[ayin jade]

5 hours ago, JohnD said:

Leviticus 20:11 (AV)
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.

Just so folks are clear the idiom is about having sex.

The only logical conclusion is that the account in Genesis 9 is a generalization that left out specific details and at least a 9 month gap of time... in that Canaan

is the byproduct of Ham and his mother doing just what Leviticus 20:11 says.

 

That is making assumptions and reading more into the bible than it states. 

[ewq1938]

20 hours ago, Takoda said:

In the literary tradition of that time and place the term "nakedness of the father" suggests that Ham took advantage of Noah's drunken state to have sex with his father's wife. To simply accidentally see his father drunk and naked seems insufficient for the punishment inflicted on Ham.

 

No punishment was inflicted upon Ham. Only Canaan was punished.

[ewq1938]

20 hours ago, JohnD said:

Agreed.

But why did Noah curse Canaan only of all Ham's children?

Canaan was the guilty person. Ham only discovered what had happened. He was not part of the actual crime/sin.

[ewq1938]

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

(uncovering someone's nakedness in the Hebrew means to have sex with their wife
Leviticus 18:5-8 )

Keep in mind this states that Ham saw this, not that he did the uncovering which suggests he might have seen someone who was "uncovering" Noah's wife.

K&D

The laws against incest are introduced in Lev_18:6 with the general prohibition, descriptive of the nature of this sin, “None of you shall approach to any flesh of his flesh, to uncover nakedness.” The difference between flesh, and flesh, is involved in obscurity, as both words are used in connection with edible flesh (see the Lexicons). “Flesh of his flesh” is a flesh that is of his own flesh, belongs to the same flesh as himself (Gen_2:24), and is applied to a blood-relation, blood-relationship being called  (or flesh-kindred) in Hebrew (Lev_18:17). Sexual intercourse is called uncovering the nakedness of another (Eze_16:36; Eze_23:18). The prohibition relates to both married and unmarried intercourse, though the reference is chiefly to the former (see Lev_18:18; Lev_20:14, Lev_20:17, Lev_20:21). Intercourse is forbidden (1) with a mother, (2) with a step-mother, (3) with a sister or half-sister, (4) with a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter, (5) with the daughter of a step-mother, (6) with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother, (7) with the wife of an uncle on the father's side, (8) with a daughter-in-law, (9) with a sister-in-law, or brother's wife, (10) with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter, and (11) with two sisters at the same time.

 

 

Now, if Ham secretly had sex with his own mom, he wouldnt go and tell his brothers about it right? "Hey guess what, I just had sex with Mom!" I mean, either Ham is utterly retarded and SICK or we are blaming him for a sexual crime he never committed.

See, it is written that Ham only SAW the nakedness...not that he did the uncovering so it is likely someone else uncovered it especially since Ham told his brothers what he has found. That's a BIG difference. Ham was the first to discover the crime!

 

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Heres the key. When this says "his younger son" we have to figure out what Noah meant. The word "younger" really means the youngest here.

Genesis 42:32 We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.

Anytime there are more than two, the word means the youngest else there would be no way to tell which was meant especially if the speaker is the father as all his children would be "younger" than he is.

Noahs youngest son is Japheth and Japheth didnt even see the nakedness but helped to cover it back up so it couldnt be him. The companion bible makes an error and says that Shem is the youngest but again he isnt guilty of anything either. And Ham is the middle son and was the one who first reported the "crime" so it wasnt him.

but what if Noah said "his younger son" and meant Hams youngest son? Or even his youngest grandson as the Hebrew makes no distinction between son and grandson.

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what HAMS YOUNGEST son had done unto him.

or it can be translated this way:

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his [youngest] [grand]son had done unto him.

Hams youngest son and Noahs youngest grandson is Canaan...the same Canaan we were told two strange times that Ham was the father of!

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

This is why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham because Canaan was the guilty one!

[BeauJangles]

I think too much speculation is going on here about Noah's nakedness. The thing that appears evident, was Noah became drunk by himself, as no one else was mentioned drinking with him, and disrobed for what ever reason. And he passed out at one point. Maybe it was a warm day, who knows? 

Edited August 9, 2019 by BeauJangles

[Jayne]

The Bible says that Noah got drunk and lay "uncovered" in his tent.

The Bible says Ham "saw the nakedness of his father" and told his brothers.

It says the brothers "took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

I've heard for decades from those who believe Ham had sex with his father or mother, but the Bible only speaks of the visual act of seeing and NOT seeing.

The Bible does not say that Ham uncovered his father's nakedness.

[Jostler]

i don't know why this worked out the way it  did, and I've wondered for years....   I bet there's a real revelation hidden in this story though.   And it will be uncovered by revelation, not adding in a bunch  of speculation based on what isn't said.

I do notice that the promised land was occupied by descendants of Caanan when it came time for Israel to enter into  His rest.  They were  wicked in the extreme, had giant/remnants in their  genetic makeup and comprised the  nations against whom God refused to  allow any quarter or mercy. 

Given the  types and shadows provided for today involved in the  "promised land" accounts of the  OT, I do pray  He will give one of us a lot deeper insight  into why  He unfolded this story the way  He did.

[Dennis1209]

Another thing that's interesting and I don't know if it's related or not?

We know Noah was about 600 years old when the flood came, he lived to be about 950 years old. Notice that after this incident [what ever it was], not much if anything is mentioned about Noah and his remaining 350 years? Like most, I don't have a clue other than the three most likely possibilities. Ham told his brothers; was he bragging or concerned, did he participate, witness or know what was done and who did it? Was Canaan the actual culprit and Ham was trying to protect his youngest son? Noah found out, how did he find out or who told him? 

It would seem logical that if Ham had provoked his father to such anger to curse one of his family members, why wasn't it him if it was him? There's no mention of a protest or the harshness of the curse of Canaan. We know the results and history of that curse with the Canaanites and hatred of Israel. 

That's question 2,539,010 0f 15,742,368 I have when I eventually meet the patriarchs, prophets and the people of the Bible in Heaven.  

[Diaste]

On 8/9/2019 at 5:11 AM, JohnD said:

Leviticus 20:11 (AV)
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.

Just so folks are clear the idiom is about having sex.

The only logical conclusion is that the account in Genesis 9 is a generalization that left out specific details and at least a 9 month gap of time... in that Canaan

is the byproduct of Ham and his mother doing just what Leviticus 20:11 says.

 

Been watching some videos of migration and genealogies of Noah's sons and the sin of Ham came up. I don't know if I buy this interpretation based on the text itself but also because the Law was given centuries later and so that law didn't even exist in the time of Noah.  

I don't think such a thing is applied retroactively. 

Not sure if Noah would have been aware of such a law or precept or taboo or not. 

Up to the time of the Law, in Adam's day, just a few generations earlier than Noah, procreation was occurring between 1st cousins and brothers and sisters, who else was there? 

Or if you subscribe to the idea Adam and Eve were the first and only two people created, where was Cain, Abel and Seth to find a wife? Sisters and nieces? Where would they come from? Father/daughter? Mother/son?

I'm no closer to understanding!