philosophizer
New member
Oops... 
Thank you, Turbo.
Thank you, Turbo.
Why Was Canaan Cursed?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
philosophizer
New member
I'm not completely sure. And I do admit that it could have happened as Bob says. But a number of other things could also have happened.
If Bob really wants to make this point, he should probably accent this part:
Genesis 9:25 -- he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
Bob should call attention to that part. If Canaan was born of Noah's wife, then Shem and Japheth would be his brothers. And that would make these verses a little clearer:
Genesis 9:26-27 -- He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
May God extend the territory of Japheth;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."
If Bob were to highlight that, then he could say that it says Canaan would be a slave to his brothers, and then it describes him being a slave to Shem and Japheth. And so because of this they could be sons of the same mother.
But there's also a problem in that. "Brothers" doesn't necessarily mean direct brothers. It can mean members of the same line. And at that point, since there was only a handful of people on the planet, everyone could be said to be of the same line and thus brothers.
My main problem with Bob's interpretation is that there's not enough story there. If it was the case that Ham slept with his mother, it probably would have been explained better. It would have been a good thing to make clearly known. And I've provided one counter-example already to using "nakedness" as a description of sex.
Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
Lev. 20:11"The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Isn't it a lot easier to let the Bible interpret itself?
Both Genesis and Leviticus were written by the same guy and so the use of the same expression in both places directly implies that they mean the same thing.
Further, if this were the only evidence that this phrase means the same thing in both places it would still be more than the evidence to the contrary. To say that it doesn't mean the same because it is not explicitly pointed out in the text is an argument from silence at best and at worst, a violation of basic Biblical hermeneutics.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lev. 20:11"The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Isn't it a lot easier to let the Bible interpret itself?
Both Genesis and Leviticus were written by the same guy and so the use of the same expression in both places directly implies that they mean the same thing.
Further, if this were the only evidence that this phrase means the same thing in both places it would still be more than the evidence to the contrary. To say that it doesn't mean the same because it is not explicitly pointed out in the text is an argument from silence at best and at worst, a violation of basic Biblical hermeneutics.
Resting in Him,
Clete
dotcom
New member
Good points you raise here.
I agree there is not enough story to come to this conclusion. The crime committed by Ham is more serious than told. Noah woke up and knew what Ham had done. Japheth and Shem didn't tell him leaving his wife as the informer. It becomes apparent that it could not just be seeing his father naked. Anybody walking by could have seen Noah naked; Ham happened to be passing by.The fact the the cursing takes place at the end of Noah's life, reveals he didn't have any more children when there was no reason not to.
Going deep into thes Hebrew texts suggests Ham had threatened to castrate his father. Was the actual crime castration? Some readers lean toward this explanation for Canaan's curse. Others lean towards maternal incest like Bob, yet others lean towards the missing red robe(symbol of divine authority) that Ham had allegedly stole from Noah after the flood.
http://members.aol.com/davecrnll/redrobe.html
The most complete treatment of Biblical idioms is that by:
E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated , 1898. Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 1968 reprint.
However, I don't believe your assertion here is correct. If this were so then much of the Bible could not be interpreted at all without the use of the original language. The Bible can reliably be used to interpret itself, regardless of it translation as long as it is a good translation.
Lev. 20 is not the only place that this idiom is clearly explained and defined. It is mentioned also in Lev 18...
Lev. 18:8 "'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife: it is your father's nakedness."
Now I don't see how you can get any clearer than that. This verse comes right out and says that the nakedness of a man's wife is his nakedness. The passage is Gen. 9 is clearly an idiom used to be discreet when discussing such vile incest as a son having sex with his stepmother! How gross is that! :vomit:
Resting in Him,
Clete
philosophizer
New member
Yes, the nakedness of a man's wife is his nakedness. But also the toenails of a man's wife are his toenails. The money of a man's wife is his money. It's a part of the shared aspect of marriage: the two become one flesh. A man's wife's nakedness is meant only for him.
But that doesn't prove that we are talking about "nakedness" in the same sense of the word in the Ham story. There are counter-examples:
Exodus 20:26
Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.
Obviously the word "nakedness" can be used in other situations with meanings other than sex. It is also obvious that it can be used as an idiom for sex. But the Ham story says nothing that definitely points to the sex idiom. I don't think it even vaugly points to it. The only connection is a loose one made through one word.
Is it any less gross that Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him? Yet Genesis 19 doesn't mince words over discression about that.
Cherith
New member
Me thinks the man protests too much
Me thinks the man protests too much
Doesn't the text say: "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him." --Gen 9:24
There wasn't a Hebrew term for "grandson" back then. Canaan violated his grandfather by having homosexual relations with him while he was passed out from his wine. That's why he (Canaan) was cursed - not Ham. The Bible never says that Ham did anything to his father, just that he saw the aftereffects, told his 2 brothers and they (in sympathy) went in and covered up their elderly father.
Me thinks the man protests too much
Doesn't the text say: "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him." --Gen 9:24
There wasn't a Hebrew term for "grandson" back then. Canaan violated his grandfather by having homosexual relations with him while he was passed out from his wine. That's why he (Canaan) was cursed - not Ham. The Bible never says that Ham did anything to his father, just that he saw the aftereffects, told his 2 brothers and they (in sympathy) went in and covered up their elderly father.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Primary text in question.
- Ge 9:18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham [was] the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.
20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said: "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren." 26 And he said: "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant." 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Firechyld - You are assuming there may be an inappropriate translation. You certainly can critically examine idiomatic or figurative expressions from a translation, especially if the translation is more literally wooden, and word for word. I do not think the issue is what it means in the words naked, that concept seems very easy to convey, and hard to mess up, but unless there is good grounds to doubt a translation, a general attack will not do. When you consider the many other examples of the same expression, you get the sense that this expression enjoys a rather full development.
Cherith - You said stuff that just does not follow. First, the expression about the father's nakedness is congruent with the entire bible's teaching that once you get married, you are not your own, the two becomes one flesh. If violate your mother, you most certainly violated your father, she is his, not anyone else's. So the fact that he was offended against, is consistent with the idiomatic expression.
As to Canaan being cursed because he did the offense, not Ham, and you site that there was not a Hebrew word for grandson. Man, that is really reaching. There was a Hebrew name for Canaan, but instead of using his name, scripture records that the deed was done by Ham, so I see no support for your contrary reasoning. Your other comments about not doing something but only saw the aftereffects can be dismissed the same way.
Cherith - You said stuff that just does not follow. First, the expression about the father's nakedness is congruent with the entire bible's teaching that once you get married, you are not your own, the two becomes one flesh. If violate your mother, you most certainly violated your father, she is his, not anyone else's. So the fact that he was offended against, is consistent with the idiomatic expression.
As to Canaan being cursed because he did the offense, not Ham, and you site that there was not a Hebrew word for grandson. Man, that is really reaching. There was a Hebrew name for Canaan, but instead of using his name, scripture records that the deed was done by Ham, so I see no support for your contrary reasoning. Your other comments about not doing something but only saw the aftereffects can be dismissed the same way.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
All - I think the case for the idiomatic expression is well developed. Please consider.
Further extensions of this same figure is shown in Le 18:14, where uncovering the nakedness is directly correlated apparent seduction to "approach his wife".
So it is no stretch of the imagination to say that "seeing" your father's nakedness is equivalent to "uncovering" your father's nakedness and was a figurative way of expressing shameful sexual relations. Though I suppose this does not establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Canaan was the offspring of Ham's offense with Noah's wife, his mother, the implications match up well.
An alternative to Bob's suggestion, although this is only based upon the sight verses uncovering issue, is that Ham beheld his mother naked in some way that was inappropriate, maybe he saw Her and Noah together. But, that would leave us with a problem with how it was that Noah responded after the booze wore off. He awoke and knew what his son had done. So Ham did something wrong, which seems to indicate pretty forcefully that it was not just a slight bit of voyeuristic imposition, a bad deed had been done and so it is reasonable to assume what Bob teaches is accurate.
- Ge 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
Ge 9:23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father‘s nakedness.
Le 18:7 ‘The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.
Le 18:8 ‘The nakedness of your father‘s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father‘s nakedness.
Le 18:9 ‘The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
Le 18:11 ‘The nakedness of your father‘s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father—she is your sister—you shall not uncover her nakedness.
Le 18:12 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father‘s sister; she is near of kin to your father.
Le 18:14 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father‘s brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
- Le 20:11 ‘The man who lies with his father‘s wife has uncovered his father‘s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
- Le 20:17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father‘s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt.
Le 20:19 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father‘s sister, for that would uncover his near of kin. They shall bear their guilt.
Further extensions of this same figure is shown in Le 18:14, where uncovering the nakedness is directly correlated apparent seduction to "approach his wife".
So it is no stretch of the imagination to say that "seeing" your father's nakedness is equivalent to "uncovering" your father's nakedness and was a figurative way of expressing shameful sexual relations. Though I suppose this does not establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Canaan was the offspring of Ham's offense with Noah's wife, his mother, the implications match up well.
An alternative to Bob's suggestion, although this is only based upon the sight verses uncovering issue, is that Ham beheld his mother naked in some way that was inappropriate, maybe he saw Her and Noah together. But, that would leave us with a problem with how it was that Noah responded after the booze wore off. He awoke and knew what his son had done. So Ham did something wrong, which seems to indicate pretty forcefully that it was not just a slight bit of voyeuristic imposition, a bad deed had been done and so it is reasonable to assume what Bob teaches is accurate.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Here's another example and some further insight.
From
Sexual intimacy is supposed to be only for the married couple, not anything else.
- Isa 47:3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered, Yes, your shame will be seen; I will take vengeance, And I will not arbitrate with a man."
From
- Ge 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
Job 26:6 Sheol [is] naked before Him, And Destruction has no covering.
Sexual intimacy is supposed to be only for the married couple, not anything else.
- Heb 13:4 Marriage [is] honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Thanks Clete! But I have an advantage, I have considered the wider contextual development involved. Most people have a hard time taking it all in, and to be honest, it can take an awful lot of work to search things like this out. But bless God, once you have done it, God is faithful to reward you and you may have a more clear understanding of who He is, and so I am blessed. And I hope this helps others too.
Also, I did not arrive at this understanding without help. Bob Enyart did an excellent job of teaching it, and I just did as I should and search these things out to see if they are so. Bob Enyart has presented so many excellent teachings like this, he really deserves credit where credit is due. But thanks for the affirmation, it is so cool when God's word fits together in so much awesome unity and sense.
Also, I did not arrive at this understanding without help. Bob Enyart did an excellent job of teaching it, and I just did as I should and search these things out to see if they are so. Bob Enyart has presented so many excellent teachings like this, he really deserves credit where credit is due. But thanks for the affirmation, it is so cool when God's word fits together in so much awesome unity and sense.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Uncovering someone's nakedness seems to be a euphemism that's often associated with adulterous relationships. Lot's daughters weren't married, and Lot wasn't married anymore (his wife had gotten turned into a salt pillar during their flight from Sodom). On the other hand, Ham and his mother were both married. Maybe that's one of the reasons the stories differ.
Last edited:
You've hit on Bob's primary method of both Bible study and Bible teaching. He always goes for the big picture first and then looks at the datails. Most Christians do the exact opposite. They study all the details and attempt to contruct a sort of theological mozaic which makes the big picture difficult to see at best. With Bob you get a view of the "wider contextual development", as you put it, and then most of the details become easy.
Resting in Him,
Clete