Was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

The Story in Genesis

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.

This is a very interesting text. It brings to mind many questions. Why would Noah curse a child for the sins of his father; doesn’t the Bible condemn this (Ezekiel 18:20)? Why does Noah not curse Ham? Why is seeing your father naked a sin, after all, can a father not bathe in the same bath as his child? Why is Noah mad at this? What exactly did Ham “do to” Noah?

Before addressing the meaning of the text, it is important to understand how the Bible was written, to whom the Bible was written, and how to know the meaning of stories in the Bible.

Cultural Idioms

Throughout the Bible, Jewish cultural idioms are used. American authors do this all the time. They speak of “hitting the road”, someone “stabbing” someone in the back, or doing something “against the clock”. It would be a tragic injustice for future readers not to understand cultural idioms and, instead, interpret the words literally. Take a few Biblical examples:

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

This is a very curious passage. Taken literally, the events described would horrify any normal person. The text, however, seems to gloss over (“glossing over” is another American idiom) this statement. This statement makes very little sense unless it is realized that “lowest parts of the earth” and “womb” were idiomatically identical in Jewish culture. See King David’s Psalm on the formation of unborn children:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

It is clear, from the wording of verse 13 and verse 15 that womb and lowest parts of the earth are used interchangeably.

Anachronisms

Because the Bible was written to actual human beings by actual human beings to convey actual ideas, sometimes words and concepts are used anachronistically. If someone is talking about the foundation of the city of Rome, they may say that “Romulus and Remus arrived at Rome around 750 BC”. Although the city was not yet founded, it is normal to give listeners an adequate understanding of events by anachronistically using words and concepts. The Bible does this several times:

Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

…

Gen 21:31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
Gen 21:32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Before Beersheba is even named, Abraham is said to be wandering in the wilderness of Beersheba. Likewise, take an example from the New Testament. In Luke the story develops John the Baptist far into his ministry before it introduces the birth of Christ:

Luk 1:80 And the child [John the Baptist] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.
[very next verse is Luk 2:1]
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
…
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Someone wishing to critique the Bible might object that this was introduced anachronistically. But because human beings converse, write, and explain concepts anachronistically, these critiques should be ignored. Anachronistic use of words are normal in conversation, especially if they are used to convey meaningful concepts.

Euphemisms

The Bible loves using euphemisms (note that the “Bible loves” is another American idiom). This is especially true when talking about shameful body anatomy and shameful actions of which Paul describes as shameful “even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (Eph 5:12). The Bible is replete with examples of this:

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.

Did Adam “know” his wife? Did Adam not meet his wife until she had a baby? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations as used also in Mat 1:25.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

What does “came together” mean? Does it mean that he had never seen or talked to Mary before this event? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations?

Deu 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

Take him by his “secrets”? This is definitely a euphemism for male anatomy.

Paul uses euphemisms when talking about death:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Also,

1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Peter uses the same euphemism while quoting a hypothetical scoffer:

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Pretend a Biblical literalist would come along claiming each word was not to be taken figuratively. Each time a Biblical scholar would claim “falling asleep” meant death, the literalist would claim it meant “to take a nap”. How would one prove to this person that “falling asleep” meant death?

Hopefully, the literalist could be explained the concept that human beings communicate in idioms. Idioms communicate very effectively and efficiently to intended audiences. Where consistent phrases are used that make very little sense by the same author of another culture, the chance is that an idiom is at play. If an author explains an idiom, texts by that author which use the same words have a high probability of being an idiom.

Back to the Story

With these concepts in mind, Genesis 9 takes on a whole new meaning:

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.

It is curious that Ham is linked with Canaan in verse 21 and then Canaan is cursed in verse 25. Ham, after all, had multiple children (4 boys at least of which Canaan was presumably the youngest). Literalists might claim that Canaan was the most wicked child, but this is nowhere in this text. The literalist is violating his own rules of interpretation to explain Canaan’s curse. The Bible NEVER informs the reader about the individual named Canaan except the place of his decedent’s residence and his lineage.

Canaan’s curse would make sense if it was a curse to a nation. After all, like Esau being Jacob’s servant, nowhere does the Bible explain that the man Canaan was actually a servant to his brothers. God tells us that he sees children as nations (this would be true while nations are first forming):

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

Esau never served Jacob, but, today, Jacob’s decedents, living in a small country, out-gun and out-prosper the entire vast swaths of decedents of Esau. The Israelites are the ones screening day-laborers coming into their territory, not vice versa. Esau, as an individual, was mightier than Jacob, so much so that when Jacob went to meet Esau he lined up his household in reverse order of importance in case Esau would kill them all (Gen 33). The curse was national. God does not curse babies.

If God was cursing an individual it violates all rules of fairness and goodness of God. One does not punish a child for the actions of his father (Ezekiel 18:20) (Deuteronomy 24:16). God rewards individuals who turn to him (Jer 26:3 and Gen 18:23).

So why was the nation of Canaan cursed? Moses, the same author of Genesis, lets future readers in on the Hebrew idiom:

Lev 20:11 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.

This idiom explains several other passages in the Bible as well. Without this explanation the verses may be hard to understand.

1Sa 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!

Discovering nakedness is a euphemism for sexual relations. This makes Gen 9 all the more clear.

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk
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 figures out that his wife is pregnant (after some time).
Gen 9:25-26 He curses 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. Why Canaan over his brothers?
The lapse in time in verse 24 can be explained as would a normal storyteller would use lapses in time. In Mat 3:13, Jesus appears, out of nowhere and fully grown. The last time Mathew had talked about him, Jesus was just a child. Nowhere is there a development transition. It is normal to skip large segments of time in telling stories.

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.

was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

This article has some thoughtful information on cultural idioms and why you can't take scripture literally and then it just goes off the rails.

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

The command of God to destroy the Canaanites has troubled Christians and non-believers alike:

Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you could sin against the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).

While the killing of the Canaanites will probably always cause us to be uneasy on the subject, Genesis chapter 9 gives us a great deal of insight into the problem.

You should understand that this command was far more difficult for the Israelites of old than for us today. Had God not hardened the hearts of the Canaanites so that they refused to seek a treaty with Israel (cf. Joshua 11:20), Israel very likely would not have aggressively sought to obey the Lord’s command to kill them.

We may fail to appreciate the situation which Israel faced as they prepared to possess the land from the Canaanites; they had little or no contact with these pagan peoples. The Israelites would have found it very difficult to grasp the reasons for being utterly merciless with their enemies, the Canaanites. Genesis chapter 9 puts this matter into perspective.

It explains the origin of the nations with whom Israel must relate in some fashion throughout its history.

In particular, this account explains the moral depravity of the Canaanites which necessitates their extermination.

Genesis 9 is crucial for another reason, also. It is a passage which has long been employed to justify slavery and, in particular, the sinful subjugation of the Black peoples throughout the centuries.

The curse of Ham, we are told, is simply being fulfilled as the Blacks live out their lives in servitude to the other races, particularly the Whites.

As we shall see, this interpretation cannot be maintained by any careful consideration of our text.

The Cursing of Canaan
(9:18-29)

continued

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

The verses we are considering should be understood in the context of the section in which they are found. Genesis 9:18 begins a new division which continues to chapter 11, verse 10. Moses wrote of the repopulation of the earth through the sons of Noah. Genesis 9:20-27 explains the three-fold division of the race for its spiritual dimensions. While the Canaanites are under God’s curse, Shem will be the line through whom the Messiah will come and Japheth will find blessing in union with the line (and the seed, ultimately the Messiah) of Shem.

Chronologically, chapter 10 should follow the confusion at Babel (11:1-9). Those verses in chapter 11 explain the reason for the dispersion of the nations. Chapter 10 describes the results of that dispersion. But chapter 10 is given first to allow the emphasis to fall upon the narrowing of the godly line down to Abram.

After the flood, Noah began to farm the land by planting a vineyard. The result of his toil was the fruit of the vine, wine. While the first mention of wine is not without its negative connotations, we should not conclude that, due to its abuse here, the Bible consistently or without exception condemns its use (cf. Deuteronomy 14:24-26; I Timothy 5:23).

Many have been troubled at the deplorable condition of Noah, the man who before the fall was described as a “righteous man, blameless in his time” (6:9). Some have suggested that fermentation may not have occurred until after the flood, and that Noah was simply suffering the innocent results of his inventive efforts.

While we should not seek to excuse Noah, we must recognize that Moses did not emphasize the guilt of Noah, but rather the sin of Ham. Some have suggested various types of evil took place within Noah’s tent. While the language employed might leave room for certain sexual sins (cf. Leviticus18). I do not personally find any reason for assuming any misconduct on the part of Noah beyond the indiscretion of drunkenness and its result in nakedness. Perhaps the best description of Noah’s conduct and condition is that of the word “unbecoming.”

I am impressed with the way in which Moses reported this incident, with a minimum of details and description. To have written any more would have been to perpetuate the sin of Ham. Hollywood would have taken us inside the tent in wide-screen technicolor. Moses leaves us outside with Shem and Japheth.

It would seem that Ham and his two brothers were alerted to Noah’s condition so that all three of them were standing outside the tent: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside” (Genesis 9:22).

While Shem and Japheth refused to go inside, Ham had no reservations about entering the tent. Whatever the failing of Noah, he was inside his own tent, in privacy (9:21). That is the way Shem and Japheth wanted it. Ham entered in, violating the principle of privacy, yet not to assist his father but to be amused at his expense.

Ham did nothing to preserve the dignity of his father. He did not see to it that Noah was properly covered. Instead he went outside to his two brothers and graphically described the folly which had overtaken their father. It seems to me that Ham also may have encouraged Shem and Japheth to go into the tent to see this for themselves.100

The lengths to which Shem and Japheth went in order not to see their father seem almost extreme in our sexually permissive society. But then, our televisions have desensitized us to nakedness or rudeness. There is nothing which is not advertised, even products which once were considered very private.

Taking “the” garment, the one which Noah should have been wearing, upon their shoulders, they went backward into the tent. Without looking upon their father, they covered him and left the tent.

In the morning, when Noah awoke from his drunkenness, he knew what had happened. We do not know how he learned of this. Perhaps he was alert enough to remember the events of the previous night. One thing I am certain about—Shem and Japheth did not tell Noah, or anyone else. I suspect that the story was well known around the camp the next morning, and probably due to Ham. If Ham did not hesitate to tell his brothers, why hesitate to tell all?

Regardless of Noah’s source of information, his response was one with broad implications. Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, was cursed.

He was to be the lowest servant101 to his brothers. While some understand the “brothers” of verse 25 to refer to his fellow man, I believe it refers specifically to Canaan’s earthly brothers, the other sons of Ham. In this way, Canaan’s curse is intensified in these three verses.

In verse 25, Canaan will be subservient to his brothers; in verses 26 and 27, to his father’s brothers, Shem and Japheth.

Viewed in this way, it is impossible to see any application of this passage to the subjugation of the Black people of the earth.

Ham was not cursed in this passage, but Canaan. Canaan was not the father of the Black peoples, but of the Canaanites who lived in Palestine and who threatened the Israelites.

In verse 26, it is not Shem who is blessed, but his God: “He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant” (Genesis 9:26).

By this, the godly line is to be preserved through Shem. From his seed the Messiah was said to come. The blessing comes not from Shem, but through Shem. The blessing flows out of the relationship which he has with Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. And the servitude of Canaan is one of the evidences of this blessing.

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

The Lord will cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before you; they shall come out against you one way and shall flee before you seven ways. The Lord will command the blessing upon you in your barns and in all that you put your hand to, and He will bless you in the land which the Lord your God gives you. The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself as He swore to you, if you will keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 28:7-9).

Just as Shem’s blessing consists in his relationship to Yahweh, Japheth will be blessed in his relationship to Shem.

May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant (Genesis 9:27).

The name “Japheth” is thought to mean ‘to enlarge’ or ‘to make wide.’102 By a word play, Noah blessed Japheth by using his own name.103 The blessing of Japheth is to be found in relationship to Shem and not independently.

This promise is stated more specifically in chapter 12, verse 3: “And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

God promised to bless Abram, and the other nations in him. All who blessed Abram would experience God’s blessing, while all who cursed him would be cursed. Again, Canaan will be subjected at those times when Japheth is found in union with Shem.

There is a clear correspondence between the activities of Ham, Shem, and Japheth and the curses and blessings which follow them. Shem and Japheth honored God when they acted together to preserve the honor of their father. Ham dishonored both his father and his God by relishing the humiliation of Noah. So Ham was cursed and Shem and Japheth were blessed in cooperative unity.

The problem which must arise from the cursing of Canaan is this: Why did God curse Canaan for the sin of Ham? Beyond this, why did God curse the Canaanites, a nation, for the sin of one man?

The explanation which best seems to answer these questions is that the words of Noah convey not only a cursing, and a blessing, but a prophecy. While it is true that the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons, this is only “to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 20:5). If this principle were to be applied, all the sons of Ham should have been cursed.

By prophetic revelation, Noah foresaw that the moral flaws evidenced by Ham would be most fully manifested in Canaan and in his offspring. Knowing this, the curse of God falls upon the Canaanites because of the sinfulness Noah foresaw.104 The emphasis thus falls upon the fact that the Canaanites would be cursed because of their sin, not due to Ham’s. I think this explains why Canaan is cursed and not Ham, or the rest of his sons.

The words of Noah, then, contain a prophecy. Canaan will most reflect the moral flaws of his father, Ham. And the Canaanites will manifest these same tendencies in their society. Because of the sinfulness of the Canaanites foreseen by Noah, the curse of God is expressed. The character of these three individuals and their destiny will be corporately reflected in the nations which emerge from them.

The Table of the Nations
(10:1-32)
Much work has been done on this chapter, but we shall restrict our efforts to the highlights. As we have previously mentioned, the confusion of Babel chronologically precedes this chapter.

The order in which Moses dealt with the three sons of Noah reflects the purpose and the emphasis of Moses. Japheth is dealt with first because he is least important to the theme being developed. Ham is next discussed because of the important part the Canaanites played in the history of Israel. Shem is mentioned last because he is the principle person of the chapter.

He is the one through whom the “seed of the woman” will come. The godly line will be preserved through Shem.

The table of the nations evidences a selectivity which is also subservient to the purpose of the account. Only those nations are described who will play a key role in the national development of Israel in the land of Canaan.

In general, the identity of the descendants of the three sons of Noah is known. From Japheth come the Indo-Europeans, the best known of which would be the Greeks. Even secular Hellenistic history looks to Iapetos as their forefather.105 Leupold tells us:

… the Japhethites are seen to be spread abroad over a well-defined area extending from Spain to Media and pretty much in one straight line from east to west.106

Most of us would be of the line of Japheth.

Ham was the forefather of those who made up great cities and empires, including Babylon, Assyria, Ninevah, and Egypt. Put was probably the father of the Black peoples. From Canaan come those nations which made up those known generally as the Canaanites:

And Canaan became the father of Sidon, his first-born, and Heth and the Jebusite and the Amorite and the Girga****e and the Hivite and the Arkite and the Sinite and the Arvadite and the Zemarite and the Hamathite; and afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad (Genesis 10:15-18; cf. Deuteronomy 20:17).

continued
10. The Nakedness of Noah and the Cursing of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-10:32) | Bible.org

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

Their territory was that in close proximity to Israel:

And the territory of the Canaanite extended from Sidon as you go toward Gerar, as far as Gaza; as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha (Genesis 10:19).

Shem is the forefather of the Shemites. We must be careful not to confuse the designation with those peoples who speak Semitic languages.

The Semitic languages include peoples of both Shem and Ham.107 Ross states the descendants of Shem as “… families stretching from Asia Minor to the northern mountains of the Tigris region, to Sumerian U, to the Persian Gulf, and ultimately to North India.”108

The most prominent of Shem’s descendants is Eber, the father of Peleg (10:25), the forefather of Abram (cf. 11:14-26).

The purpose of chapter 10 is best summarized by Cassuto. It was:

(a) to show that Divine Providence is reflected in the distribution of the nations over the face of the earth not less than in other acts of the world’s creation and administration; (b) to determine relationship between the people of Israel and the other peoples; (c) to teach the unity of post-diluvian humanity, which, like antediluvian mankind, was wholly descended from one pair of human beings.109

Conclusion

Genesis chapters 9 and 10 were vital to the nation Israel as it anticipated the occupation of the promised land of Canaan.

The cursing of Canaan explained the source of the moral depravity of the Canaanites of their day.

More than any other people, their sexual depravity is evidenced by archaeological findings. Albright has written,

Comparison of the cult objects and mythological texts of the Canaanites with those of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians forces one conclusion, that Canaanite religion was much more completely centered on sex and its manifestations.

In no country has so relatively great a number of figurines of the naked goddess of fertility, some distinctly obscene, been found. Nowhere does the cult of serpents appear so strongly. The two goddesses Astarte (Ashtaroth) and Anath are called ‘the great goddesses which conceive but do not bear.’110

In addition to explaining the reason for the extermination of the Canaanites, Genesis chapter 10 helps to identify the Canaanites:

Now the Canaanites are treated, because Moses knew that Israel’s associations with these people were destined to be many (cf. 15:16), and Israel must also definitely know who were Canaanites and who not, because of Israel’s duty to drive them out of the land of Canaan (111

Sadly, we must realize that Israel failed to fully apply the teaching of this passage. They did not completely destroy the Canaanites and they sometimes intermarried, to their own detriment.

There is a great lesson in this portion of Scripture for us:

Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, ‘THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.’

Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall effinbaugh graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary

shunyadragon · Apr 16, 2019

sooda said:
The Story in Genesis

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.

This is a very interesting text. It brings to mind many questions. Why would Noah curse a child for the sins of his father; doesn’t the Bible condemn this (Ezekiel 18:20)? Why does Noah not curse Ham? Why is seeing your father naked a sin, after all, can a father not bathe in the same bath as his child? Why is Noah mad at this? What exactly did Ham “do to” Noah?

Before addressing the meaning of the text, it is important to understand how the Bible was written, to whom the Bible was written, and how to know the meaning of stories in the Bible.

Cultural Idioms

Throughout the Bible, Jewish cultural idioms are used. American authors do this all the time. They speak of “hitting the road”, someone “stabbing” someone in the back, or doing something “against the clock”. It would be a tragic injustice for future readers not to understand cultural idioms and, instead, interpret the words literally. Take a few Biblical examples:

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

This is a very curious passage. Taken literally, the events described would horrify any normal person. The text, however, seems to gloss over (“glossing over” is another American idiom) this statement. This statement makes very little sense unless it is realized that “lowest parts of the earth” and “womb” were idiomatically identical in Jewish culture. See King David’s Psalm on the formation of unborn children:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

It is clear, from the wording of verse 13 and verse 15 that womb and lowest parts of the earth are used interchangeably.

Anachronisms

Because the Bible was written to actual human beings by actual human beings to convey actual ideas, sometimes words and concepts are used anachronistically. If someone is talking about the foundation of the city of Rome, they may say that “Romulus and Remus arrived at Rome around 750 BC”. Although the city was not yet founded, it is normal to give listeners an adequate understanding of events by anachronistically using words and concepts. The Bible does this several times:

Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

…

Gen 21:31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
Gen 21:32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Before Beersheba is even named, Abraham is said to be wandering in the wilderness of Beersheba. Likewise, take an example from the New Testament. In Luke the story develops John the Baptist far into his ministry before it introduces the birth of Christ:

Luk 1:80 And the child [John the Baptist] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.
[very next verse is Luk 2:1]
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
…
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Someone wishing to critique the Bible might object that this was introduced anachronistically. But because human beings converse, write, and explain concepts anachronistically, these critiques should be ignored. Anachronistic use of words are normal in conversation, especially if they are used to convey meaningful concepts.

Euphemisms

The Bible loves using euphemisms (note that the “Bible loves” is another American idiom). This is especially true when talking about shameful body anatomy and shameful actions of which Paul describes as shameful “even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (Eph 5:12). The Bible is replete with examples of this:

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.

Did Adam “know” his wife? Did Adam not meet his wife until she had a baby? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations as used also in Mat 1:25.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

What does “came together” mean? Does it mean that he had never seen or talked to Mary before this event? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations?

Deu 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

Take him by his “secrets”? This is definitely a euphemism for male anatomy.

Paul uses euphemisms when talking about death:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Also,

1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Peter uses the same euphemism while quoting a hypothetical scoffer:

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Pretend a Biblical literalist would come along claiming each word was not to be taken figuratively. Each time a Biblical scholar would claim “falling asleep” meant death, the literalist would claim it meant “to take a nap”. How would one prove to this person that “falling asleep” meant death?

Hopefully, the literalist could be explained the concept that human beings communicate in idioms. Idioms communicate very effectively and efficiently to intended audiences. Where consistent phrases are used that make very little sense by the same author of another culture, the chance is that an idiom is at play. If an author explains an idiom, texts by that author which use the same words have a high probability of being an idiom.

Back to the Story

With these concepts in mind, Genesis 9 takes on a whole new meaning:

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.

It is curious that Ham is linked with Canaan in verse 21 and then Canaan is cursed in verse 25. Ham, after all, had multiple children (4 boys at least of which Canaan was presumably the youngest). Literalists might claim that Canaan was the most wicked child, but this is nowhere in this text. The literalist is violating his own rules of interpretation to explain Canaan’s curse. The Bible NEVER informs the reader about the individual named Canaan except the place of his decedent’s residence and his lineage.

Canaan’s curse would make sense if it was a curse to a nation. After all, like Esau being Jacob’s servant, nowhere does the Bible explain that the man Canaan was actually a servant to his brothers. God tells us that he sees children as nations (this would be true while nations are first forming):

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

I do not think these relationships reflect the reality of the actual historical relationships between the tribes of the region. It reflects the traditional view of the Hebrews between ~1,000 and 700 BCE when Genesis was compiled with the Pentateuch. Remember Genesis is not history.

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

shunyadragon said:
I do not think these relationships reflect the reality of the actual historical relationships between the tribes of the region. It reflects the traditional view of the Hebrews between ~1,000 and 700 BCE when Genesis was compiled with the Pentateuch. Remember Genesis is not history.

I know its not history, but it does reflect the thinking of the author.. and I find it terribly confusing and overall awful..

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

Canaanite Land and Language
The land of Canaan itself was generally recognized as extending from Lebanon in the north to Gaza in the south, encompassing modern-day Israel, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, and western Jordan.

It included important trade routes and trading sites, making it valuable territory for all the surrounding great powers for the next millennia, including Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria.

The Canaanites were a Semitic people because they spoke Semitic languages. Not much is known beyond that, but linguistic connections tell us something about cultural and ethnic connections.

What archaeologists have been able to discover of ancient scripts indicates not only that proto-Canaanite was an ancestor of later Phoenician, but that it was a likely middle step from Hieratic, a cursive script derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Canaanites and Israelites
The similarities between Phoenician and Hebrew are remarkable. This suggests that Phoenicians — and therefore the Canaanites as well — were likely not as separate from the Israelites as is commonly assumed. If the languages and scripts were that similar, they probably shared quite a bit in culture, art and perhaps even religion.

It is likely that the Phoenicians of the Iron Age (1200-333 BCE) came from the Canaanites of the Bronze Age (3000-1200 BCE). The name "Phoenician" probably comes from the Greek phoinix. The name "Canaan" may come from the Hurrian word, kinahhu. Both words describe the same purple-reddish color. This would mean that the Phoenician and Canaan's had at least one similar word in common, for the same people, but in different languages and at different points in time.

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

The Hebrew God was different from the gods of the Canaanites. The Canaanites were farmers; the Israelites were shepherds.

The gods of the cycle of planting and of harvesting were foreign to Israel, a people who served the God of migration.

The Canaanites believed that the fertility of the land was the work of their god Baal.

The Israelites did not know whether Yahweh could provide them with abundant crops.

So the question became whether to please the fertility gods of Canaan or depend on Yahweh for their survival. Israel decided to do both: they would worship Yahweh and at the same time they would please the gods of the land.

continued

Israel and Canaanite Religion

Deeje · Apr 16, 2019

Here is another explanation concerning Genesis 9:20-27.....

"The record of this incident is very brief and likely leaves out details that would be illuminating. Many Bible scholars believe that Canaan was involved in some way not specifically mentioned. The account shows that when Noah awoke he “came to know what his youngest son had done to him”. Rotherham’s translation has a footnote on “youngest son”, which reads: “Undoubtedly Canaan, and not Ham: Shem and Japheth, for their piety, are blessed; Canaan, for some unnamed baseness, is cursed; Ham, for his neglect, is neglected.

Jewish religious authorities take a similar view. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by J. H. Hertz, comments: “This vague narrative refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated. . . . Instead of showing filial respect and covering his father, Ham deemed the occasion food for laughter, and mockingly repeated the incident to his brothers.” After noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in Ge 9 verse 24 may also mean “grandson”, this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash, edited by A. Cohen, points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon him”, and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham. That some abuse or perversion or base lust, rather than a mere exposure of nakedness, may have been embraced by the words “saw the nakedness of his father” is apparent when it is remembered that incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of uncovering one’s nakedness or seeing one’s nakedness.—Lev. 18:6-19; 20:17.

Hence it seems that Canaan may very likely have been guilty of some abuse or perversion against the person of his grandfather Noah, and that Ham witnessed this without interfering. Instead he spread the story of the shaming of his father. Shem and Japheth acted to cover this shame. So they were blessed, the likely perpetrator Canaan was cursed, and the guilty bystander and tale-bearer Ham was personally ignored yet suffered through the shame brought upon his offspring. Such is the reasonable view taken by many careful Bible scholars, though the greatly abbreviated record as it has come down to us in the Bible does not supply all the details. God does not need to justify to us his dealings with such situations by giving all the details, which in this case might clarify Canaan’s role in the matter. The important point is supplied, namely, that Jehovah caused Noah to utter the prophecy and Jehovah brought about its fulfillment."

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953567?q=canaan+cursed&p=par#h=6
"Why did Noah curse Canaan when Ham was the offender?"

sooda · Apr 16, 2019

Deeje said:
Here is another explanation concerning Genesis 9:20-27.....

"The record of this incident is very brief and likely leaves out details that would be illuminating. Many Bible scholars believe that Canaan was involved in some way not specifically mentioned. The account shows that when Noah awoke he “came to know what his youngest son had done to him”. Rotherham’s translation has a footnote on “youngest son”, which reads: “Undoubtedly Canaan, and not Ham: Shem and Japheth, for their piety, are blessed; Canaan, for some unnamed baseness, is cursed; Ham, for his neglect, is neglected.

Jewish religious authorities take a similar view. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by J. H. Hertz, comments: “This vague narrative refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated. . . . Instead of showing filial respect and covering his father, Ham deemed the occasion food for laughter, and mockingly repeated the incident to his brothers.” After noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in Ge 9 verse 24 may also mean “grandson”, this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash, edited by A. Cohen, points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon him”, and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham. That some abuse or perversion or base lust, rather than a mere exposure of nakedness, may have been embraced by the words “saw the nakedness of his father” is apparent when it is remembered that incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of uncovering one’s nakedness or seeing one’s nakedness.—Lev. 18:6-19; 20:17.

Hence it seems that Canaan may very likely have been guilty of some abuse or perversion against the person of his grandfather Noah, and that Ham witnessed this without interfering. Instead he spread the story of the shaming of his father. Shem and Japheth acted to cover this shame. So they were blessed, the likely perpetrator Canaan was cursed, and the guilty bystander and tale-bearer Ham was personally ignored yet suffered through the shame brought upon his offspring. Such is the reasonable view taken by many careful Bible scholars, though the greatly abbreviated record as it has come down to us in the Bible does not supply all the details. God does not need to justify to us his dealings with such situations by giving all the details, which in this case might clarify Canaan’s role in the matter. The important point is supplied, namely, that Jehovah caused Noah to utter the prophecy and Jehovah brought about its fulfillment."

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953567?q=canaan+cursed&p=par#h=6
"Why did Noah curse Canaan when Ham was the offender?"

Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. Noah was his grandfather.

Salvador · Apr 16, 2019

sooda said:
The Story in Genesis

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.

This is a very interesting text. It brings to mind many questions. Why would Noah curse a child for the sins of his father; doesn’t the Bible condemn this (Ezekiel 18:20)? Why does Noah not curse Ham? Why is seeing your father naked a sin, after all, can a father not bathe in the same bath as his child? Why is Noah mad at this? What exactly did Ham “do to” Noah?

Before addressing the meaning of the text, it is important to understand how the Bible was written, to whom the Bible was written, and how to know the meaning of stories in the Bible.

Cultural Idioms

Throughout the Bible, Jewish cultural idioms are used. American authors do this all the time. They speak of “hitting the road”, someone “stabbing” someone in the back, or doing something “against the clock”. It would be a tragic injustice for future readers not to understand cultural idioms and, instead, interpret the words literally. Take a few Biblical examples:

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

This is a very curious passage. Taken literally, the events described would horrify any normal person. The text, however, seems to gloss over (“glossing over” is another American idiom) this statement. This statement makes very little sense unless it is realized that “lowest parts of the earth” and “womb” were idiomatically identical in Jewish culture. See King David’s Psalm on the formation of unborn children:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

It is clear, from the wording of verse 13 and verse 15 that womb and lowest parts of the earth are used interchangeably.

Anachronisms

Because the Bible was written to actual human beings by actual human beings to convey actual ideas, sometimes words and concepts are used anachronistically. If someone is talking about the foundation of the city of Rome, they may say that “Romulus and Remus arrived at Rome around 750 BC”. Although the city was not yet founded, it is normal to give listeners an adequate understanding of events by anachronistically using words and concepts. The Bible does this several times:

Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

…

Gen 21:31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
Gen 21:32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Before Beersheba is even named, Abraham is said to be wandering in the wilderness of Beersheba. Likewise, take an example from the New Testament. In Luke the story develops John the Baptist far into his ministry before it introduces the birth of Christ:

Luk 1:80 And the child [John the Baptist] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.
[very next verse is Luk 2:1]
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
…
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Someone wishing to critique the Bible might object that this was introduced anachronistically. But because human beings converse, write, and explain concepts anachronistically, these critiques should be ignored. Anachronistic use of words are normal in conversation, especially if they are used to convey meaningful concepts.

Euphemisms

The Bible loves using euphemisms (note that the “Bible loves” is another American idiom). This is especially true when talking about shameful body anatomy and shameful actions of which Paul describes as shameful “even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (Eph 5:12). The Bible is replete with examples of this:

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.

Did Adam “know” his wife? Did Adam not meet his wife until she had a baby? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations as used also in Mat 1:25.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

What does “came together” mean? Does it mean that he had never seen or talked to Mary before this event? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations?

Deu 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

Take him by his “secrets”? This is definitely a euphemism for male anatomy.

Paul uses euphemisms when talking about death:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Also,

1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Peter uses the same euphemism while quoting a hypothetical scoffer:

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Pretend a Biblical literalist would come along claiming each word was not to be taken figuratively. Each time a Biblical scholar would claim “falling asleep” meant death, the literalist would claim it meant “to take a nap”. How would one prove to this person that “falling asleep” meant death?

Hopefully, the literalist could be explained the concept that human beings communicate in idioms. Idioms communicate very effectively and efficiently to intended audiences. Where consistent phrases are used that make very little sense by the same author of another culture, the chance is that an idiom is at play. If an author explains an idiom, texts by that author which use the same words have a high probability of being an idiom.

Back to the Story

With these concepts in mind, Genesis 9 takes on a whole new meaning:

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.

It is curious that Ham is linked with Canaan in verse 21 and then Canaan is cursed in verse 25. Ham, after all, had multiple children (4 boys at least of which Canaan was presumably the youngest). Literalists might claim that Canaan was the most wicked child, but this is nowhere in this text. The literalist is violating his own rules of interpretation to explain Canaan’s curse. The Bible NEVER informs the reader about the individual named Canaan except the place of his decedent’s residence and his lineage.

Canaan’s curse would make sense if it was a curse to a nation. After all, like Esau being Jacob’s servant, nowhere does the Bible explain that the man Canaan was actually a servant to his brothers. God tells us that he sees children as nations (this would be true while nations are first forming):

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Genesis 9 Biblical verses are meant at all to be taken literally; imo, they have a spiritual meaning as determined by Emanuel Swedenborg:

Spiritual Meaning of GENESIS 9:22

Deeje · Apr 16, 2019

sooda said:
Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. Noah was his grandfather.

Did you read what the Jewish interpretation is......it is after all their scripture....

"After noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in Ge 9 verse 24 may also mean “grandson”, this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash, edited by A. Cohen, points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon him”, and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham. That some abuse or perversion or base lust, rather than a mere exposure of nakedness, may have been embraced by the words “saw the nakedness of his father” is apparent when it is remembered that incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of uncovering one’s nakedness or seeing one’s nakedness.—Lev. 18:6-19; 20:17."

Enoch07 · Apr 16, 2019

Deeje said:
Did you read what the Jewish interpretation is......it is after all their scripture....

"After noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in Ge 9 verse 24 may also mean “grandson”, this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash, edited by A. Cohen, points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon him”, and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham. That some abuse or perversion or base lust, rather than a mere exposure of nakedness, may have been embraced by the words “saw the nakedness of his father” is apparent when it is remembered that incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of uncovering one’s nakedness or seeing one’s nakedness.—Lev. 18:6-19; 20:17."

You nailed it.

Ham raped his mother while Noah was drunk. That is what it means when "Ham saw his Fathers nakedness". Its just a way to describe the act in a more pg way so that it won't disturb children.

Deeje · Apr 16, 2019

Enoch07 said:
You nailed it.

Ham raped his mother while Noah was drunk. That is what it means when "Ham saw his Fathers nakedness". Its just a way to describe the act in a more pg way so that it won't disturb children.

where did that come from? Noah's wife is not mentioned. The two brothers who covered up their father's nakedness did so to restore his dignity. The account is too vague to make statements like that.

Enoch07 · Apr 16, 2019

Deeje said:
where did that come from? Noah's wife is not mentioned. The two brothers who covered up their father's nakedness did so to restore his dignity. The account is too vague to make statements like that.

Tis what happened though. As ugly as it is, it is the truth.

Hockeycowboy · Apr 16, 2019

^ A thread where the OP responds to their OP, more than any other posters (op’s), combined.
Interesting.

The Anointed · Apr 17, 2019

sooda said:
Esau never served Jacob, but, today, Jacob’s decedents, living in a small country, out-gun and out-prosper the entire vast swaths of decedents of Esau. The Israelites are the ones screening day-laborers coming into their territory, not vice versa. Esau, as an individual, was mightier than Jacob, so much so that when Jacob went to meet Esau he lined up his household in reverse order of importance in case Esau would kill them all (Gen 33). The curse was national. God does not curse babies.

If God was cursing an individual it violates all rules of fairness and goodness of God. One does not punish a child for the actions of his father (Ezekiel 18:20) (Deuteronomy 24:16). God rewards individuals who turn to him (Jer 26:3 and Gen 18:23).

So why was the nation of Canaan cursed? Moses, the same author of Genesis, lets future readers in on the Hebrew idiom:

Lev 20:11 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.

This idiom explains several other passages in the Bible as well. Without this explanation the verses may be hard to understand.

1Sa 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!

Discovering nakedness is a euphemism for sexual relations. This makes Gen 9 all the more clear.

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk
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 figures out that his wife is pregnant (after some time).
Gen 9:25-26 He curses 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. Why Canaan over his brothers?
The lapse in time in verse 24 can be explained as would a normal storyteller would use lapses in time. In Mat 3:13, Jesus appears, out of nowhere and fully grown. The last time Mathew had talked about him, Jesus was just a child. Nowhere is there a development transition. It is normal to skip large segments of time in telling stories.

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.

was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

Canaan! The result of an incestuous relationship between Noah’s wife and Ham???? What a load of unsupported mental masterbating rubbish..

The scriptures do not reveal exactly what Canaan had done to his grandfather Noah, as he lay naked in a drunken stupor in his tent, so we can only speculate as to what occurred. My own personal opinion is that Canaan, the ancestor of today’s Palestinians, sodomised his grandfather, but like I said, that is only my personal opinion.

Shem, is the younger brother of Ham the first-born son of Noah, and Ham is the father of Canaan whom Noah cursed when he awoke from his drunken stupor and realised what his youngest descendant [Canaan] had done to him. After cursing Canaan, Shem was given the blessing of first born by Noah, which was removed from his elder brother, “Ham,” because of what his son Canaan had done to him. See Genesis 9: 24 to 27.

The scriptures tell us that Noah had begun his family when he had turned 500, If it had been after he turned 510, the bible would have stated that, if it was after Noah had turned 505, the bible would have said so, if it were after Noah turned 502, this would have been revealed in scripture, but no! The Bible tells us that it was when Noah turned 500 that he began his family.

Genesis 8: 4; On the seventeenth day of the seventh month of the six hundredth year of Noah, the boat came to rest on a mountain in the Ararat range, showing that Noah, who began his family just after he turned 500, was six hundred years old when the flood came to its finish. Then in Genesis 11: 10; we read; “These are the descendants of Shem. Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old etc.” Here, the scriptures reveal to all, that Shem was born when Noah was 502.

And again, in Genesis 10: 21; we read that “Shem is the older brother of Japheth.” Knowing from the scriptures, that Japheth was the younger brother of Shem, and being assured by the scriptures that Shem was born when Noah was 502, and that Noah began his Family when he turned 500; we have deduced from all this, that Ham was the first-born son of Noah.

The reason why God sent the descendants of Shem into the land of the first born son of Noah, Ham/Egypt, was because of what Canaan the youngest descent of Noah had done to him while he lay naked in his tent in a drunken stupor; Genesis 9: 24; When Noah sobered up and learned what his youngest son/Male descendant had done to him, he cursed Canaan and blessed his second son Shem, on who he then bestowed the blessing of first born.

Jubilees 7: 13; And Ham knew that his father had cursed his younger son, and he was displeased that he had cursed his son. and he parted from his father, he and his sons with him, Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan. And he built for himself a city and called its name after the name of his wife Ne’elatama’uk.

The Book of Jubilees Chapter 8: When Noah divided the Land among his three sons, Shem received the middle portion, from the delta of the river of Egypt, north to Lebanon and east to India, while Ham received the land of Africa to the south, and Japheth received the land to the north of Lebanon, which according to the book of Jubilees 8: 30; It is said that the Land of Japheth included the five great islands and a great land in the north. But it is cold, and the land of Ham is Hot, and the land of Shem (The middle son) is neither hot nor cold, but it is of blended cold and heat.

The sons of Noah then divided their portion of land among their sons, and it is written in Jubilees 9: 14; “And thus the sons of Noah divided unto their sons in the presence of Noah their father, and he bound them all by an oath, imprecating a curse on everyone who sought to seize the portion that had not fallen to him by lot. And they all said, ‘So be it; so be it,’ for themselves and for their sons for ever throughout their generations til the day of judgement, etc.”

Then in chapter 10: 29; we read; “And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (That is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of the Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham his father, and Cush and Mizraim, his brothers said unto him: ‘Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and be accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled; and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out forever, etc.

After Noah had transferred the blessing of firstborn to Shem, the Lord God then had to remove from Ham the spirit of Firstborn and implant it into the expanded body of Shem.

This He did by sending Jacob/Israel, the chosen descendant of Shem into the land of firstborn/Egypt, where they interbred with Ham’s descendants for 215 years, before killing all the firstborn male descendants of Ham, after which, in the year of 1567 B.C., The Lord then called his Son ‘Israel’ in who had been transferred the spirit of Firstborn, out of Egypt.

Was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

RF's Swedenborgian

Avid Bible Student

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Avid Bible Student

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Witness for Jehovah

Well-Known Member