Who Uncovered The Nakedness Of Noah?

[whirlwind]

I see what your saying Whirl but its just the way its written that it seems so,
having a closer look Noah had 3 sons ..Shem Japheth and Ham

18And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham
is the father of Canaan. ( this only describes who Ham was)

19These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread
These three sons had no children before the flood

Genesis 10
1Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood

6And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

we know Canaan was not born until after the flood he was the youngest of four
Noah would have been their grandfather (even if as you say there was no word for grandfather you still have to much to explain

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had
Ham was the Youngest son of Noah ....Noah saw what his youngest son had done.

Ham wasn't the youngest son of Noah....he was the middle child. Noah knew what his younger son had done. Ham saw what that younger son did and that was to uncover Noah's nakedness. Ham didn't but someone did and Ham saw it.

22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
The two brothers he told were Shem and Japheth ..... These would have been uncles to Canaan not brothers

23And 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.

Canaan's brothers were Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, ............. Not Shem and Japath ..................

Yes, Ham told his two brothers, Shem and Japeth, and they covered Noah. He didn't tell Canaan's brothers.

you guys are very near to blashphemy.

unfoundedly accusing ham of adultery. what grounds? is it because somebody told you so.

you should repent.

listen to the word of god, not traditions of men

Sniper....have you been told of anything that isn't written? I assure you, the Word of God is being listened to.

 

[sniper762]

i know only what is written in the bible and there is nothing in the bible that even hints to the accusations that have been posted hear. the scriptures are plain and simple and nothing needs to be read into it.
ham did NOTHING wrong. he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and his son was railroaded for it. i cant help but think that there was some conspiracy there.

 

[whirlwind]

i know only what is written in the bible and there is nothing in the bible that even hints to the accusations that have been posted hear. the scriptures are plain and simple and nothing needs to be read into it.
ham did NOTHING wrong. he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and his son was railroaded for it. i cant help but think that there was some conspiracy there.

I don't think what you or I believe on this particular issue is vital for our souls. However.....

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.​

I love searching for what He has concealed.

The scriptures are plain and simple. He tells us exactly what happened. Ask yourself....why would his son be "railroaded" into something he, Ham, is blamed for? :blink:

 

[sniper762]

exactly

the son should not be held accountable for the doings of his father. that was one of the mosaic laws.

the punishment here does not fit the crime, and based on the scriptural account, no crime had been comitted anyways.

something is missing here

 

[whirlwind]

exactly

the son should not be held accountable for the doings of his father. that was one of the mosaic laws.

the punishment here does not fit the crime, and based on the scriptural account, no crime had been comitted anyways.

something is missing here

Sniper....please reread the OP (original post).

1. A crime was committed.

2. The crime doesn't fit the punishment IF Canaan was punished for what Ham did....so, Ham didn't do it, Canaan did.

3. I agree the son is not held responsible for the father but a consideration is....the Mosaic laws had not yet been written.

 

[sniper762]

Sniper....please reread the OP (original post).

1. A crime was committed.

2. The crime doesn't fit the punishment IF Canaan was punished for what Ham did....so, Ham didn't do it, Canaan did.

3. I agree the son is not held responsible for the father but a consideration is....the Mosaic laws had not yet been written.

please show me by scripture reference where a crime was "actually" committed. note the scripture says that ham "saw" his father's nakedness, not "uncovered" it.

and what crime, if any did "cainan" comit?

 

[jerryjohnson]

please show me by scripture reference where a crime was "actually" committed. note the scripture says that ham "saw" his father's nakedness, not "uncovered" it.

and what crime, if any did "cainan" comit?

Take it up with Noah! Noah is the one that cursed Canaan. Canaan was an illegitimate child, born to Noah’s wife through Ham, Noah’s real son. If your wife was impregnated by your son, what would you feel towards that baby? Canaan was not cursed by God, Canaan was cursed by Noah.

 

[sniper762]

Take it up with Noah! Noah is the one that cursed Canaan. Canaan was an illegitimate child, born to Noah’s wife through Ham, Noah’s real son. If your wife was impregnated by your son, what would you feel towards that baby? Canaan was not cursed by God, Canaan was cursed by Noah.

please post scripture that supports the allegation that canaan was ham's son by noah's wife. maybe a motive to fabricate such a misled story, but nevertheless, untrue.

 

[jerryjohnson]

please post scripture that supports the allegation that canaan was ham's son by noah's wife. maybe a motive to fabricate such a misled story, but nevertheless, untrue.

Most of the Scripture's have been posted all ready. I can not teach you to read and THINK! And I do not care if YOU understand it or not!

 

[sniper762]

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."
What did Ham do? Did he just look at his naked father or was there something more to it than that? Some commentators have suggested that Ham committed homosexual rape on his drunken father, and that this was why Ham's descendants were eternally punished with slavery. 9:24
Why did Noah curse Canaan when it was Ham who saw him naked? Why was Noah so angry that Ham saw him naked? Some propose that Ham and/or Canaan actually did something to Noah in addition to seeing him naked. The passage mentions that Noah was angry when he found out, "what his youngest son had done to him." Homosexuality, rape, and humiliation are frequently mentioned as possibilities. However, the text nowhere states that Ham did anything to Noah. Any such view of what occurred is speculation.

Another view arises out of comparison with Leviticus 20:11, "The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness..." With Leviticus 20:11 in mind, some propose that Ham had sex with Noah's wife, and that was what brought the curse from Noah. However, this figurative understanding of "uncovering nakedness" fails to account for the fact that Shem and Japheth walked into the room backward and covered Noah with a garment. This does not make any sense if "uncovering nakedness" means "having sex with Noah's wife." It definitely seems that Noah was lying naked—his nakedness uncovered.

Whatever took place between Ham and Noah, why did Noah curse Ham's son Canaan, when Canaan is nowhere mentioned as having done anything? The Bible does not specifically answer this question. Ham was Noah's youngest son, and Canaan was Ham's youngest son. Perhaps Noah cursed Canaan because it is more painful for a father to see his child suffer than it is for a father to suffer himself. The other possible explanation is that Canaan was somehow involved in the incident, thereby bringing Noah's curse upon himself.

the fact is that there are no scriptures that support your allegations.
why must you listen to speculations of commentators (mortal men).
read and believe the word of god "as it is written"

 

[Christina]

Take it up with Noah! Noah is the one that cursed Canaan. Canaan was an illegitimate child, born to Noah’s wife through Ham, Noah’s real son. If your wife was impregnated by your son, what would you feel towards that baby? Canaan was not cursed by God, Canaan was cursed by Noah.

Exactly I agree Jerry

All one has to do is look in any genology site of the bible Sniper

CANAAN ("humiliated")[sons = Jebusites, Amorites, etc.]. A son of Ham. When Ham "saw the nakedness of his father," Noah (Genesis 9:22), Ham's son, Canaan (but not Ham himself, or his other sons), was cursed by Noah (Genesis 9:25-27). Canaan was the father of two named sons, Sidon and Heth, and is the founding ancestor of the Canaanites and other (sub?)groups such as the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, etc. (Genesis 10:15-20).
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/biblesource.html#C

Whirl
Its true I am taking Noah's word for it that Ham was his youngest son, there is no evidence to the contrary, except the order the names are listed ....And perhaps thats the reason its pointed out to us that Ham was the father of Canaan so many times so that we wouldnt draw a wrong conclusion....It still doesnt change the fact that Canaan was a nephew to Shem and Japheth

Why didnt Ham cover his mother himself to cover his sons crime? Instead of ask his brothers ...like you say no one is not going to be saved over what they think of this ...but I see no reason to dispute a well documented biblical understanding on a maybe....
To Assume enough time had passed that Canaan was old enough assume that Ham told canaans uncles assume Noah should have said the son of my son instead of my son ..It's all speculation.
Im sure better scholars than myself have looked into this ...and all reputable conclusions agree ..
Ham was the guilty one and Noah cursed the child Cannaan .... I have no reason to disagree.

 

[whirlwind]

Exactly I agree Jerry

All one has to do is look in any genology site of the bible Sniper

CANAAN ("humiliated")[sons = Jebusites, Amorites, etc.]. A son of Ham. When Ham "saw the nakedness of his father," Noah (Genesis 9:22), Ham's son, Canaan (but not Ham himself, or his other sons), was cursed by Noah (Genesis 9:25-27). Canaan was the father of two named sons, Sidon and Heth, and is the founding ancestor of the Canaanites and other (sub?)groups such as the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, etc. (Genesis 10:15-20).
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/biblesource.html#C

Whirl
Its true I am taking Noah's word for it that Ham was his youngest son, there is no evidence to the contrary, except the order the names are listed ....And perhaps thats the reason its pointed out to us that Ham was the father of Canaan so many times so that we wouldnt draw a wrong conclusion....It still doesnt change the fact that Canaan was a nephew to Shem and Japheth

Noah didn't say Ham was the youngest. Noah didn't mention Ham. He said....

Genesis 9:24-25 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.​

Canaan being a nephew to Shem and Japeth isn't an issue. Ham told his brothers Shem and Jepeth. What did he tell them....he told them what Canaan had done. That was the reason Canaan was cursed.

Why didnt Ham cover his mother himself to cover his sons crime? Instead of ask his brothers ...like you say no one is not going to be saved over what they think of this ...but I see no reason to dispute a well documented biblical understanding on a maybe....

Did he want to cover his son's crime? Or, for that matter, if he was the culprit himself...why tell his brothers, why not just cover daddy? I believe he wanted his brothers to know what his son had done. He felt shame at what had happened, as would I if one of my children had done such a thing.

To Assume enough time had passed that Canaan was old enough assume that Ham told canaans uncles assume Noah should have said the son of my son instead of my son ..It's all speculation.
Im sure better scholars than myself have looked into this ...and all reputable conclusions agree ..
Ham was the guilty one and Noah cursed the child Cannaan .... I have no reason to disagree.

Have you never wondered....why, why did Noah curse Canaan? Putting myself in Noah's place, would I curse the child of the one that did that or...the one that did that?

 

[sniper762]

Noah didn't say Ham was the youngest. Noah didn't mention Ham. He said....

Genesis 9:24-25 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.​

Canaan being a nephew to Shem and Japeth isn't an issue. Ham told his brothers Shem and Jepeth. What did he tell them....he told them what Canaan had done. That was the reason Canaan was cursed.



Did he want to cover his son's crime? Or, for that matter, if he was the culprit himself...why tell his brothers, why not just cover daddy? I believe he wanted his brothers to know what his son had done. He felt shame at what had happened, as would I if one of my children had done such a thing.

you guys still have yet to post anything to substanciate your allegations of ham's adultery.






Have you never wondered....why, why did Noah curse Canaan? Putting myself in Noah's place, would I curse the child of the one that did that or...the one that did that?

 

[Christina]

Noah didn't say Ham was the youngest. Noah didn't mention Ham. He said....

Genesis 9:24-25 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.​

Canaan being a nephew to Shem and Japeth isn't an issue. Ham told his brothers Shem and Jepeth. What did he tell them....he told them what Canaan had done. That was the reason Canaan was cursed.



Did he want to cover his son's crime? Or, for that matter, if he was the culprit himself...why tell his brothers, why not just cover daddy? I believe he wanted his brothers to know what his son had done. He felt shame at what had happened, as would I if one of my children had done such a thing.





Have you never wondered....why, why did Noah curse Canaan? Putting myself in Noah's place, would I curse the child of the one that did that or...the one that did that?

Yeah sure, but then we arent talking about us, it just never much mattered to me, what matters here is we understand Canaan was cursed because of the sin of incest .
The verse's could be taken either way I guess, If you want to see it that way. Its just not worth going against all Biblical scholars and genology's on a perhaps to me


Sniper
if you do not get it put it on the shelf
we have done nothing but give you the proof if God wont allow you the wisdom to see it now he may later ....
God interpts his own Word he is the same yesterday today and tomorrow when he says something means a thing
then thats just plain what it means ..He says in Lev. while giving the jews the laws and statues that to
"See your father nakedness means to have sex with your fathers wife" period
if you dont believe what God says this figure of speech means then its your misunderstanding.

We cant give you more proof than God says so .... Incest was the reason Canaan was cursed

 

[jerryjohnson]

.... Incest was the reason Canaan was cursed

At that time there was not a law against incest. The act was not a sin against God it was against Noah. Noah cursed Ham's child, that would basicly mean that Canaan would not figure into Noah's geneology. Canaan would not inherit any of Noah's wealth. Canaan was Ham's son but not Noah's grandson.

 

[sniper762]

Yeah sure, but then we arent talking about us, it just never much mattered to me, what matters here is we understand Canaan was cursed because of the sin of incest .
The verse's could be taken either way I guess, If you want to see it that way. Its just not worth going against all Biblical scholars and genology's on a perhaps to me


Sniper
if you do not get it put it on the shelf
we have done nothing but give you the proof if God wont allow you the wisdom to see it now he may later ....
God interpts his own Word he is the same yesterday today and tomorrow when he says something means a thing
then thats just plain what it means ..He says in Lev. while giving the jews the laws and statues that to
"See your father nakedness means to have sex with your fathers wife" period
if you dont believe what God says this figure of speech means then its your misunderstanding.

We cant give you more proof than God says so .... Incest was the reason Canaan was cursed

be it as it is, incest is what YOU say and allow yourself to believe. it is NOT god's word.
interpret as you may. i only believe what is written in the bible.

see ya

 

[jerryjohnson]

be it as it is, incest is what YOU say and allow yourself to believe. it is NOT god's word.
interpret as you may. i only believe what is written in the bible.

see ya

snip,
I'm willing to bet you believe in the "rapture."

 

[sniper762]

snip,
I'm willing to bet you believe in the "rapture."

not pre-trib nor trib nor post trib, sorry you lose

 

[Christina]

be it as it is, incest is what YOU say and allow yourself to believe. it is NOT god's word.
interpret as you may. i only believe what is written in the bible.

see ya

Please with your bible knowlege then Sniper why dont you explain Leviticus 18:6-8/and 20:19 for us and tell us what it means?

6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

and Leviticus 20:19
19And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

You might want to read this in NIV or some other translation you will see whats said so you can please tell us what it means

 

[sniper762]

all of the scriptures that you posted refer to "not to UNCOVER the nakedness"

nowhere in the noah/ham incident is that issue suggested.

noah was FOUND naked in the tent by ham. ham didnt UNCOVER his father's nakedness

i challenge you to present scripture evidence to substanciate otherwise.