Naked Bible Podcast 159 - Noah’s Nakedness, The Sin Of Ham, & The Curse Of Canaan
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2017
- The episode of Noah’s drunkenness in Genesis 9 has long befuddled interpreters. One of Noah’s sons, Ham, commits some heinous crime against his father. Oddly, though, Ham is not the one cursed by his father. Instead, Ham’s son Canaan bears the wrath of Noah. This episode explores the traditional solutions to the interpretive confusion and offers an alternative based on recent research in the Hebrew text.
Sources:
• John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn, “Noah’s
Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan,” Journal of Biblical Literature
124:1 (2005): 25-40
Please help support Houseform Apologetics Ministry @
paypal.me/houseform
venmo.com/houseform
cash.me/$HouseformApologetics
![Natanael Cano x Oscar Maydon - Giza [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eXCS6-MSQ_Y/mqdefault.jpg)
I am truly late to this conversation. However, I am "without words" concerning the inaptness of the lay person to discern the bible without the honesty and expertise of M. Heisser. ThankYou Sincerely. It is quite painful to be held hostage by ignorance.
Thank goodness Michael Heiser left us a great body of work to absorb. About the time I really started getting into the meat of his work, he became ill and passed away. I feel like I lost an old, trusted friend.
We'll get to be friends forever, though, and the blanks he struggled to fill in for himself and us will be filled in by The Lord Himself. The Lord's Peace to his family and friends.
“...bible interpretation actually matters folks...” MH
Accurate Bible interpretations matter. Adding farce, fiction, make believe, corrupt beliefs destroy the true integrity and intent of the scripture / message.
The Theologians, scholars and scientist have totally misconstrued the Noah message. Sadly, ninety nine percent of the listeners have fallen victim to Bible error following these foolish interpretations.
@@soundjudgement3586 Agreed, I also agree with this explanation, I think you do but I'm unclear.
@@soundjudgement3586 what’s your interpretation?
@@AA-by7xc I sent a detailed reply, albeit, after I clicked on send it disappeared
An excellent and credible linguistic and idiomatic examination of Scripture. I love it when an academic cuts through all the white noise. Great job, Dr. Heiser.
The 613 laws we're codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These came decades after the Noah account. No scriptures in the Noah account prove direct or indirect that Noah's wife was in the tent. No scriptures in the Noah account assert that " uncovered " was of a sexual nature.
Theologians have twisted sincere Bible readers minds. God never called, annointed nor gifted a theologian. Theologians promote and twist Bible and scriptures. The Noah account is prime example of theologians malicious insertion of events and activities out of sync with sound doctrine
@@soundjudgement3586 Go with what you can grasp.
Oh my goodness, this is deep!! You explained this VERY well. I've never heard this premise before(!), and you explained with Biblical facts extremely well. Thank you!
Amen! I agree with your comment 100%
👋🏾🥰👍🏾😇🙏
Oh my God,Dr Heiser😭😭😭,We have lost a great teacher. Thank you for imparting your generation . RIP , God’s general🔥🙌🏻
I learned this yesterday in one verse. Leviticus 20:11 "If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Thanks for this. I believe this is the real nature (answer) of cannan's curse. And so was cannan's mother Noah's wife? But incest is rampant in the church...i'm inclined to even believe that this is why too, we are commanded not to call a man father (as in spiritual fathers) on this earth. Incest seems spiritual too. My ex-"Bishop" abandoned his own wife, the wife of his youth, & took his spiritual son's (youth pastor) wife as his own until this very day. Spiritual incest? A lot...but real...i'm living it. Now he teaches: one wife @ a time. Giving license to get another one if he chooses. Whore? But Yashua didn't condemn the woman @ the well 5 husbands, and a stray, later did He? She became a proclaimer (preaacher) of Him. "Come see..."
I was waiting for someone to render this answer...especially these scholars
A very coherent argument giving scriptural support to this view. It is the best view.
I was teaching this in my Bible study last week ! I had it wrong ! I was so excited listing to you Michael , I forgot about the time
and missed church ! Can't wait to share this with my study group.
I did my homework Pastor Dan. So glad i listened to this.
The 613 laws we're codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These came decades after the Noah account. No scriptures in the Noah account prove direct or indirect that Noah's wife was in the tent. No scriptures in the Noah account assert that " uncovered " was of a sexual nature.
Theologians have twisted sincere Bible readers minds. God never called, annointed nor gifted a theologian. Theologians promote and twist Bible and scriptures. The Noah account is prime example of theologians malicious insertion of events and activities out of sync with sound doctrine
Wow. I've waited many years to hear a coherent explanation for this text. Thank you for all of your work.
This certainly answers a lot of questions! Thank you for this detailed explanation and now it makes sense! 👍👍
It’s my understanding that God created one race, in Adam and Eve, but multiple ethnicities developed.....all equal before the Lord✝️😊
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his fathers wife hath uncovered his fathers nakedness:
First time this story has ever made sense to me. I’m not sure but it seems the best explanation
'Now Ham was the father of Canaan.'
That's an interesting phrase to prologue the passage with. I feel like you could prove or disprove this theory depending on how you take that. For example, if you take it as 'Ham was already the father of Canaan' as in, Canaan already existed, that kind of disproves the theory.
However, if you take it as, 'Ham was the father of Canaan, and this is how that happened' that pretty much proves it. Much like Genesis 1:1 - God created the heavens and the earth, and then the rest of the chapter goes on to describe how that happened. The sequence of events.
Making the point that Noah was not the father, but Ham was. Interesting idea.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - KJB
Lev 18 - 20 inclusive.
This still doesn't make the theory stand. After Noah was sober, he knew what his youngest son did and curse Canaan. Seems like Canaan was already born before this event. So, seems like Canaan wasn't the product of this so called incest.
I can’t believe I’ve read the Bible so many times and never seen this.
I still don't.
@@chalmapatterson544 In my case it's not because I had to convince myself accept this interpretation. It's that I hadn't paid enough attention to the details or asked certain questions. What does uncovering your father's nakedness actually mean to the original audience? (see the law of Moses - refers to father's wife). Why was Canaan cursed if Ham was the one who sinned? (ah, because Canaan is the incestuous offspring of Ham). So Chalma my question is if you genuinely can't see it, or if you choose not to accept this logical and historical and biblically harmonious interpretation? And if the latter, then how do you answer those two questions I mentioned? I'm not saying you have to accept this interpretation, but I don't think someone can reject it as far fetched or impossible. It actually makes a lot of sense given that part of why God judged Canaan later is because of the depth of their sexual immorality...which fits even more if they were born out of sexual immorality. They continued the pattern of sin. Sorry for the long reply. Was just curious why you said you still don't see it.
Wow Mike, you really put the Naked in naked Bible haha.
Jokes aside, thanks for clearing this up.
If “seeing the nakedness” means sexual intercourse, is it safe to assume that when the Bible says Ham’s brothers “did not see their father’s nakedness”... is it referring to the fact that they did not see, as in engage in sexual intercourse, with their father’s wife?
The 613 laws we're codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These came decades after the Noah account. No scriptures in the Noah account prove direct or indirect that Noah's wife was in the tent. No scriptures in the Noah account assert that " uncovered " was of a sexual nature.
Theologians have twisted sincere Bible readers minds. God never called, annointed nor gifted a theologian. Theologians promote and twist Bible and scriptures. The Noah account is prime example of theologians malicious insertion of events and activities out of sync with sound doctrine
Ahem.. “Duh”.
Ok if Ham had sex with his mother. Then goes and tells his brothers ( you know those other two that the bore) . Wouldn't you kick your brothers butt for doing such a thing to your MOTHER?!
Sure, where does it say they didn’t do that?
Scripture says not to add or take away. There is no, absolutely no scripture that says Noah's wife was in the tent. There are no scriptures in the Noah account that denote " uncovering " was of a sexual nature.
The laws for the Israelites came after Noah in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In Noah times they were laws unto themselves in accordance to their knowledge of God.
God never called, approved or sent Theologians or Bible Intellectuals to carry out his will. Theologians as in the Noah case prempt and nullify God's word when they add false substance to accentuate an event.
One more point is that the curse of Canaan would have been removed by Jesus at the cross. Jesus became a curse for all humanity.
What if Noah’s wife was not Hams mother. What if his mom had died years ago and she was a second wife. She may have been closer to his kids ages. Still a sin ,but not what we are thinking.
I've read that Noah's s wife was Namah and that she was in descent of the line of Cain. Its been awhile since I read that. I should look at it again.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. - KJB
Wonderfully explained, I fear far to many people don't actually
study the Bible.
They depend on others telling them what the Bible means.
- *_God Bless_*
Excellent teaching.
For people citing the Jasher skins story, even if true, it would be hard to prove a connection between that story and this one. There's no evidence from Jasher that Noah ever found out, let alone his brothers found out, that Ham had stolen the skins. Ham gave them to Cush in secret. Cush gave them to Nimrod in secret. No mention of anyone getting drunk or anything like that. If they had wanted to tie the genesis account into the skin story in Jasher, they could have.
Astonishing. As usual!
I enjoy this so much.
The "Lost Tribes" idea was mentioned as an example of "Bad Bible exegesis". I would find a podcast on this subject very enlightening. Thank you for this excellent explanation of Noah and Ham. Fortunately, I'd already come around to this viewpoint by studying Leviticus, though the subject of whose tent it was is totally new to me. However, in the case of the Lost Tribes, I expect, should you explore the topic, I will have a giant part of my Old Testament worldview taken apart piece by piece in a painful and disorienting way.
(I listened to your brief explanation of the lost tribes in a later podcast but it wasn't a detailed treatment of the subject. Acknowledging that Dr. Heiser's scholarship is far superior to mine, I do think that using the term "gentiles" when referring to "everybody besides the Jews" is begging the question: Where did the lost tribes go? Jacob had plenty to say about that when he conferred his blessing on Joseph's sons. If the Bible doesn't give detailed answers on the dispersion of Ephraim et al., the history of the region seems to.)
Could this act by Ham be some small part of an explanation why giants continued *after* the flood?
So, do you think Ham was a Nephilim?
Slight adjustment; Noah's wife is never called the mother of Shem, Ham and Japheth. It's just as possible (and more probable in my estimation) that the act took place with Ham's stepmother. If this be the case, an interesting tidbit of tradition makes this story all the more interesting. Namely, Noah's wife according to some Hebrew and Rabbinical tradition was Naamah. Thus the Canaanites would be counted as direct descendents of Cain through the maternal side. Which, as it were, would shed some light on the Kenites (i.e. Cainites) and their trade: considering that Tubal Cain was the first smith, as well as the brother of Naamah.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Dr Heiser, with respect, I'd disagree with all of these explanations because the text you describe isn't the same chronology and detail as the biblical text. The text itself explicitly describes exactly what went on. It clearly says Noah BECAME [is] physically naked due to drunkeness and that Ham appears to revel in this when he SEES it and advertises the fact to his brothers, but his brothers took great care not to uncover this lewdness out of honour for their father. It says "their faces were turned away" i.e. they walked into the tent backwards, and that they "covered their father's nakedness with a GARMENT". You cannot cover an idiom for sexual intercourse with a garment. Plus Ham is ALREADY described as the father of Caanan at this point in the story. That's why Noah is able to curse Canaan as soon as he awakes.
Here's the text in Young's Literal Translation... 20And Noah remaineth a man of the ground, and planteth a vineyard, 21and drinketh of the wine, and is drunken, and uncovereth himself in the midst of the tent. 22And Ham, father of Canaan, seeth the nakedness of his father, and declareth to his two brethren without. 23And Shem taketh - Japheth also - the garment, and they place on the shoulder of them both, and go backward, and cover the nakedness of their father; and their faces [are] backward, and their father's nakedness they have not seen. 24And Noah awaketh from his wine, and knoweth that which his young son hath done to him, 25and saith: ‘Cursed [is] Canaan, Servant of servants he is to his brethren.’
I was taught this story is an allegory for 'Love covers a multitude of sins', and God's distinct approval of those who approach others' failings with a sense of humility, and his distinct disapproval of those that revel in the failings/shame of others. This has served me well for 40 years.
Any thoughts?
Excellent exposition, thanks very much. I haven't listened to a Heiser podcast for ages.
Here down south, when I was a lot younger. The story that the Mark of Cain was black skin and that's how southerners justified slavery for a long time too....
I’m from South carolina and I’ve never heard that except from Jehovah’s Witnesses
That was a mormon doctrine..the black skin..mark of cain
@@ingognito369
And Joseph Smith stole that idea from the Seventh Day Adventists. Just like he stole the "golden plates" from the freemasons.
There where a lot of interesting things going on in those days.
Yes, I heard that from my uncle and he was no Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. He was evangelical and very wrong on this teaching.
He is right on point excellent scholar, mks sense to me and I have not heard anyone explan this curse so thorough with bk up that mks sense.
If someone have a better explanation send it to me iam waiting?
Totally getting into the meat of the matter. Best interpretation of what is really in the text. I always asked why Ham's son would bear the curse. It makes sense this way than any other interpretation i've ever heard before. Raised in the JW church their interpretation was just stupid. Never made any sense. A Whole Nation was cursed for drunkenness, but never addressed the nakedness or why Canaan was cursed, but it was because of their inability to even address similar problems of the bible. That I realized they're not educated men interpreting the bible. Most of the ones at the top have only 8th grade education or never finished high school. Think about that for a minute. And as M. Heiser pointed out idioms play a big role in understanding text. I've learned it's not there fault, it's just the blind leading the blind. None of them go to College or University to become scholars of the bible. They're interpreting scripture when they don't even know Greek or Hebrew, yet these are your interpreter for you literature. That was a huge wake up call for me. I was listening to one of the Heads of the JW's office, who was being questioned by the Australian Commission investigation into child abuse claims. And he was bragging about being on the interpreter committee, yet he didn't speak or know anything in Greek or Hebrew. But he helped translate their bible "The New World Translation" Wow. What an eye opener for me. How could someone who only went to 8th grade, couldn't speak or understand the biblical language be the head leader of 8 million people around the World? I now, pay attention to what people say. I do more research of my own. I don't want to be misled by anyone. It's interesting, and it's how I came across Michael Heiser, he's been in academia for years. He's well educated, everything they teach there followers to stay away from. Why? Because if they're dumbed down they will never know they're being led by ignorant men. The bible passage comes to mind: My people will perish for lack of knowledge.
Yes!!!! I knew it all along. Very good understandable teaching
Well it really is the "naked" bible podcast for this one 🤡
How would Noah know something happened if all that happened was someone looking at him.
As always, Mike Heiser does an excellent job in showing us the various mainstream views about this (and many other) topic(s).
I have one question though, didn't the Canaanites descend from Canaan? If so, it's interesting to read about the way the Canaanites ended up -- enemies of God and God's people. Weren't these people sexually defiled by mating with or becoming Nephilim?
If the mother had some passive Nephilim genes passed on to Ham, affecting neither of them.
If the two of them passed them on as dominant, Canaan would seed some with Nephilim genes. Look how it works with average size parents with 4 kids and one is a dwarf.
Genetics is interesting with its possibilities.
Due to genetics many assume Adam and Eve were middle brown with the markers for all skin pigment variations, leading to the world today. All one family from Adam and Eve.
I believe you are vastly overstating the leap from "uncovering nakedness" to seeing nakedness. If the author wanted to use the idiom he would have used the idiom. This explanation makes no sense.
When Noah's son became aware of his dad's nakedness(weakness, faults, sin) he went out and ran his mouth about it instead of helping his dad fix himself. And God doesn't like that. Deep down we can all understand the truth buried in this passage.
Well said sir, agree with you 100%
The explanation in this very is overreach and very incorrect. They are using Leviticus 18 to create a false narrative. If Ham would have slept with Noah’s wife, his punishment would have been very severe according to Leviticus 20:11. He would have been put to death! Canaan is simple cursed because he is the son who goes on to steal the land that belongs to Shem.
UNCOVER and COVER are opposites. If uncovering the nakedness of Noah was a sexual act, how can Shem and Japheth act reverse that sexual act by covering their father.
NoelinUAE excellent logic. Also did Ham tell his brothers that Noaha was a naked drunk? It would appear that Ham was intentionally shaming is father publicly to make him look bad.
They covering their mother's nakedness
He was bragging to his brothers that he'd just usurped his father's authority, the brothers in turn, covered their mother up in an act of respect.
The text doesn't say "covered their father", but "covered their fathers nakedness". I don't see at what point an argument for the reversal of the sexual act was made, but as Jesusgirl said, they covered their fathers nakedness (their mother's nakedness is the fathers nakedness) out of respect. Or rather than respect, as a means to show their disagreement with Ham's sin.
Covering prevents the act, not reverse version of the act.
Does this passage refer back to the end of chapter 5 and the words of Lamech ? An argument for the paternal incest view is that the Sodom episode echoes the Flood narrative. Could the Noah passage be written with the recurrent Genesis theme of fertility / the promise of of a son, in mind ? This interpretation makes admirable sense, in so many ways.
Just one point: the (puzzling ?) blessing on Shem and Japheth seems to be parallel to the curse on Canaan, yet you mention only the curse and not the blessings.
Wow!
Ham was an animal acting like a bull elk in mating season, and Noah cut Ham off through the curse on Ham's unholy offspring Canaan.
Did this event show or cause the Canaan's descendants to be Giants (nephilim) ?
I'm trying to understand
I have gratitude to you for explaining this. I had the idea that Ham lay with Noah’s concubine, but the Bible never said Noah took a concubine on the Ark.
The 613 laws we're codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These came decades after the Noah account. No scriptures in the Noah account prove direct or indirect that Noah's wife was in the tent. No scriptures in the Noah account assert that " uncovered " was of a sexual nature.
Theologians have twisted sincere Bible readers minds. God never called, annointed nor gifted a theologian. Theologians promote and twist Bible and scriptures. The Noah account is prime example of theologians malicious insertion of events and activities out of sync with sound doctrine
Ham isn't curse In this passage but he is cursed in another passage when those handing out blessings to Shem and japheth. I think that's where they're getting these thoughts from about how to treat the hamites. I'm not saying I agree with it but I understand the verse that they're getting it from
Also, i was recently moved to elaborate on this opinion and so i write the same here.
Well, first of all, i considered the fact that Noah became drunk, and by the fact that he was a righteous man he must have had an appropriate reason to drink heavily that day.(the stealing of those precious garments would have been more than enough of a reason to drink heavily in order to drown the sorrow of losing them)
Second, the issue of his nakedness being mentioned eludes to the absence of garments, for that is what nakedness is. (yes, his garments were not upon him, but also the precious garments that he previously had in his possession were no longer found by him, because they were stolen and concealed by Ham)
Third, why would Noah take off all his clothes ? I repeat, he was a righteous man and would not have done so for a small reason. I believe he disrobed or rend his clothes for sorrow of the loss of those precious garments. The rending of clothes was a common practice when suffering the loss of something or someone. Why did his other sons not lay their father”s own garment upon him to cover his nakedness? If his own garments were torn, than that might be a reason. The garment that was laid upon Noah by his other two sons is mentioned as ”a garment” not as being their father”s garment.
Fourth, it is written that when Noah awoke from the wine he knew what his younger son had done to him. How would he have known what transpired while he was sleeping? He would have been unaware of the whole incident with Ham discovering his nakedness and telling his brothers about it, and his other sons covering him up while not gazing on his nakedness. Sure, he would have seen a garment laid upon him, but that could have been laid upon him by any one of his sons, or combination of his sons, therefore he would not have known exactly which of his sons saw him naked. By the fact that he awoke and knew what Ham had done unto him, without Noah questioning anyone or investigating anything, leads me to believe that it was about the stealing of the precious garments of skin, which he had prior knowledge of them being taken anyway(even the fact that the garments of skin that Adam and Eve wore were stolen eludes to the stealing of the aspect/gaze of the skin itself, in this case Noah”s skin that covered his body, his son gazed upon it, a thing that he should not have seen, thereby being similar to stealing that gaze).Also i would like to point out that God made those precious garments for Adam and Eve, without there being a mention of an animal being sacrificed to provide that skin, but i am going into another topic already. As to the question of why Noah did not demand the garments back is pretty obvious to me. If there were so few people and one of them stole the garments, would not the thief, in this case Ham have been a liar also, that he should deny the truth before his father if asked to return the garments? Also that manner of a curse that Noah cursed is a bit too much for a simple gaze upon his nakedness, no?
I hope i helped in some way. God bless you.
It doesn't seem like you listened to the podcast
Did shem and ham have different mothers?
Is there any support for Noah’s wife not being the mother of Shem, Ham and Japheth? Doesn’t change the sin of Ham in trying to usurp Noah’s authority but does make more sense to my modern mind than incest with his own mother. However, Noah was the one considered righteous in the flood story...it may have been part of the depravity of the people of the earth who were destroyed and that’s why Ham was boasting about his sin because it wasn’t uncommon in the culture he was raised in. Just wondering... really appreciate your work!
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
So glad I sought-out Dr. Heiser' s research on this one. I have believed the maternal incest line ever since I came across it and did what amounts to just a tiny bit of research into ' uncovering the nakedness of, but Dr. Heiser has added tremendously to this. I had never even wondered or worried about whose tent it was. Why wouldn't Noah s wife be in his tent? However, learning that the text actually says ' her' tent really cinches it. People argue this verse all the time. Seems that people who reject the maternal incest explanation also reject the idea of Nephilum after the flood. They say it is denying the word and power of God because He said He was wiping it all out. I've always figured there was more to this and I'd love to hear Dr. Heiser' s thoughts on it; anyone have a link?
I am concerned that I haven’t heard this topic discussed yet. How Did the Nephilim survive the Great Deluge?
@@willajenkins5427 I'm not yet clear on it
How can you explain through what you just said in this video Genesis chapter 9 verse 18 through 27 where Noah curses Canaan when it looks like Canaan was born before the incest.
My thought is maybe Noah cursed Canaan because if Noah’s wife got pregnant it would have been her fourth child…..illegitimate and an abomination therefore Noah cursed Hams fourth child…..I don’t know, just a thought.
Wow... Just hearing the entire Ham trying to take over with his own lineage through Cain and how then Cain is cursed and out of the inheritance.... Just screams the Biblical narrative of what Satan did to try and take over and sinned and his seed cast out..... awesome video glad I found it
that last portion is some heavy racism apologetic. the truth is they had racist ideas first and used the bible to justify it, they were definitely not trying to preserve their "faith" or "beliefs" in the bible they didn't read and interpret the bible then engaged in slavery
Maybe you should provide a time stamp and stop being vague.
He didn't give a defense for it, if anything he condemned it as bad ideas based on bad interpretation.
I agree with this interpretation except I don't understand why Dr. Heiser seemed so certain that Noah's wife is Ham's own mother. Instead, it seems like the sin of Reuben and the sin in the Corinthian church, a stepmother.
Why did God save Ham from the flood?
That could be. This could have happened 25-100 years after the flood, and Noah had an incestuous wife after his wife died.
@@yosef6664 Sure. It would have been only technically but not morally incestuous.
@@medicalmisinformation I agree.
Jaw dropped!
I was blind now I see!
Holy Spirit (via MH) 😊👍
Seek and u will find!
TRUTH!
what i don't get is when it was just Adam & Eve, at some point, the sons had to "see the nakedness" of Eve or their sisters. What was the protocol and at what generation did leviticus outlaw or what am i missing?
Idk the answer to your question but something related I heard some time ago was that tracing back our dna shows that it was about the time of Leviticus that the dna became corrupt enough that close relative reproduction would start producing birth defects which may be why marriage between close relatives before that was not against the law.
“See the nakedness” is an idiom for having sexual relations as heiser talks about. A lot of scholars don’t think any Levitical law applies to Adam and Eve since it hadn’t been given to humanity yet.
When you say “what generation did Leviticus outlaw”, what do you mean? What generation was it given to?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou but Noah would be before the levitical laws too.
@@ajoy1028 exactly 💯
The keyword in the Canaanite issues is the pronoun "he" and not "they" Noah was not upset with the children of canaan, who would become great nations. But with Ham and pronounced Canaan would be a servant. In essence, Noah was upset with Ham disrespect and proclaimed a form of father-son correction.
Haha uncovering rhe Bibles nakedness!
r u Muslim?
Liviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his fathers wife Hath uncovered his fathers nakedness. Also read Leviticus 20, verses 20 and 21, to uncover a mans nakedness is to sleep with his wife.
As long as there some percentage of women prefering sugar dads over teen younger but refugees this is sure to happen....!
:-)
The 613 laws we're codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These came decades after the Noah account. No scriptures in the Noah account prove direct or indirect that Noah's wife was in the tent. No scriptures in the Noah account assert that " uncovered " was of a sexual nature.
Theologians have twisted sincere Bible readers minds. God never called, annointed nor gifted a theologian. Theologians promote and twist Bible and scriptures. The Noah account is prime example of theologians malicious insertion of events and activities out of sync with sound doctrine.
You need to read the book of Jasher chapter 7.
Why was Canaan Isreal's promised land? I sense there's way more to this than I understand.
THE BOOK OF JASHER SAYS CAANAN OCCUPIED LAND GIVENTO SHEM. THE LAND BELONG TO SHEM DECENDANT
Israel was commanded to take the land of Canaan back and conquer it, like they are doing today. They have to do it today because they failed then. They will get it right this time because God will see to it, not because of Israel but because of God's name and promises to Israel.
So Cannan is the offspring of Noah's wife?
God did not curse Ham. Noah did not curse Ham.
Noah cursed Canaan.
I doubt there is a pure ethnic bloodline from Noah's children, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. I theorize all ethnicities have some Jewish genetics in their bloodlines, just as all Jews have some genetics from all other ethnicities in their bloodlines. Judaism is a religion, not a race. If you believe in the flood story, there is only one race originating from Noah, unless you believe the curse on the line of Canaan created a sub-race of slave people's to serve Shem and Japeth. I believe Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed by Noah because Canaan was Noah's wifes child by Ham, Ham (uncovered Noah's nakedness), Noah's wife, it was incest between Ham and his mother, Noah's wife. So Noah, the patriarch, cursed Canaan, his wifes son by Noah's son Ham. Sugar coating scripture is a form of false teaching. I have no respect for weak bible teachers with no courage to interpret truthfully.
Genesis 9:25-29 NLT - Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham:
“May Canaan be cursed!
May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives.” Then Noah said,
“May the LORD, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and may Canaan be his servant! May God expand the territory of Japheth!
May Japheth share the prosperity of Shem,
and may Canaan be his servant.” Noah lived another 350 years after the great flood. He lived 950 years, and then he died.
Notice Ham was not cursed, just Ham's son, Canaan. Please don't confuse Ham's, with Hamas. Hamas is Canaan.
@@yosef6664 agreed. Canaan the offspring of Noah's wife via incest.
Do you think God wanted that part in the bible since it does nothing but cause one to do a guessing game? I think God knew that some things would be in the bible that did nothing but confuse the readers, That is why God said 'Do not add or take away his words. God knew there were parts that made no sense would be written..
Uncovering the nakedness of the Bible.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What about the sin of drunkenness, re: Noah?
Thank you Roger. You rarely hear anyone mention the fact of how noah's drunkenness played a big part in this story . Noahs drinking problem got his family off track.
@@yosef6664 yeah, always with consequences sleepy.
God did not curse Ham. Noah did not curse Ham.
Noah cursed Canaan.
I doubt there is a pure ethnic bloodline from Noah's children, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. I theorize all ethnicities have some Jewish genetics in their bloodlines, just as all Jews have some genetics from all other ethnicities in their bloodlines. Judaism is a religion, not a race. If you believe in the flood story, there is only one race originating from Noah, unless you believe the curse on the line of Canaan created a sub-race of slave people's to serve Shem and Japeth. I believe Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed by Noah because Canaan was Noah's wifes child by Ham, Ham (uncovered Noah's nakedness), Noah's wife, it was incest between Ham and his mother, Noah's wife. So Noah, the patriarch, cursed Canaan, his wifes son by Noah's son Ham. Sugar coating scripture is a form of false teaching. I have no respect for weak bible teachers with no courage to interpret truthfully.
Genesis 9:25-29 NLT - Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham:
“May Canaan be cursed!
May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives.” Then Noah said,
“May the LORD, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and may Canaan be his servant! May God expand the territory of Japheth!
May Japheth share the prosperity of Shem,
and may Canaan be his servant.” Noah lived another 350 years after the great flood. He lived 950 years, and then he died.
Notice Ham was not cursed, just Ham's son, Canaan. Please don't confuse Ham's, with Hamas. Hamas is Canaan.
It's hard to accept this translation although its appealing. My reason is it is not Noah's wife who drank and became naked. Rather it was Noah. So clearly, it was Noah's nakedness that was seen , and not his wife keepingcwoth the account. Also the other 2 brothers go in to cover the one who was drunk and whose nakedness was exposed. So I don't think by the literary account, its incestuous homosexual act or the raping of their mother by ham. It's simply not having shame when he saw the father's nakedness and the mockery of it unlike his brothers who felt ashamed and protected his honor .
Martin Asare Leviticus 18:8 and Deuteronomy 27:20
100% agreed thank you Martin
Who is cannan's mother? Not even noah could curse what (who) TMH blessed. TMH blessed Noah's sons.
TMH? What do the letters stand for, please?
@@klarag7059 THE MOST HIGH - TMH
Daphne Dade for a moment I thought you were making fun of me, sarcastically calling me THE MOST HIGH, LOL! I’m glad it wasn’t the case. Thanks for letting me know.
The Bible says: Gen 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
Canaan was born during the flood and came off the Ark and was classed as the youngest son of Noah.
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.
son H1121 Strong's H&G Dictionary
From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.,
Ham was not Noah's youngest son! He was the second.
Shem was the youngest of Noahs sons; Japheth was the elder; Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
Follow the line of Canaan and you know Noah cursed the right person!
Gen 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
Gen 10:16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
Gen 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
Gen 10:18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
Gen 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
Looking at Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
The curse of Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan. One might see how Exo.34:7 followed Canaan's children to Sodom & Gomorrah,
Genesis 10:1
"Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: And unto them were sons born AFTER (not during) the flood."
I do find your breakdown of scripture very sound.
The only thing that stops me from fully believing it is;
1)Ham was the one that Saw Noah's nakedness.
2) Genesis 10:1
3)Ham being described as the father of Canaan in Gensis 9:18 doesnt neccesarily mean canaan was actually born yet.
Matter of Chronology = Japheth, Shem, Ham
Matted of Importance = Shem, Ham, Japheth
I agree! Is Nimrod descendant of Ham? Because Nimrod's wife is his mother.
@@RonniepmrWhy was Judas one of the 12?
Why was Satan before the throne in Job with the other angels and God asks "from wence have you come??"
Ham was Noah's son and pure in his genetic lineage and so saved from the flood. It still doesn't mean he can't succomb to Satan's ideologies and sinning
Maybe too much shame in that act which is why Bible scholars steered clear of it?
To uncover your fathers nakedness is to sleep with his wife !!
Yep, that’s what he says…
Lev 18:8
God did not curse Ham. Noah did not curse Ham.
Noah cursed Canaan.
I doubt there is a pure ethnic bloodline from Noah's children, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. I theorize all ethnicities have some Jewish genetics in their bloodlines, just as all Jews have some genetics from all other ethnicities in their bloodlines. Judaism is a religion, not a race. If you believe in the flood story, there is only one race originating from Noah, unless you believe the curse on the line of Canaan created a sub-race of slave people's to serve Shem and Japeth. I believe Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed by Noah because Canaan was Noah's wifes child by Ham, Ham (uncovered Noah's nakedness), Noah's wife, it was incest between Ham and his mother, Noah's wife. So Noah, the patriarch, cursed Canaan, his wifes son by Noah's son Ham. Sugar coating scripture is a form of false teaching. I have no respect for weak bible teachers with no courage to interpret truthfully.
Genesis 9:25-29 NLT - Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham:
“May Canaan be cursed!
May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives.” Then Noah said,
“May the LORD, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and may Canaan be his servant! May God expand the territory of Japheth!
May Japheth share the prosperity of Shem,
and may Canaan be his servant.” Noah lived another 350 years after the great flood. He lived 950 years, and then he died.
Notice Ham was not cursed, just Ham's son, Canaan. Please don't confuse Ham's, with Hamas. Hamas is Canaan.
First n fall most from a biblical standpoint.. sin could have upon do to seeing his nakedness.. according to bible Adam n Eve was ashamed of there nakedness. Hams experience could have been more, if the Adam n Eve situation hold weight, could it be once they saw(themselves) possibly came mating or acknowledgement of there fleshly desires?
Men use urinals son's and dad's are they cursed. Son's and dad's shower or bath together ( little sons) cursed?
Anyone reading the NIV Bible and wondering if they purposely intend to mislead people or just biased in their interpretations or just ignorant?
LOL I taught about this, yes it is the book of satan. the same one discussed by yeshua in mattitatyahu (matthew)
RUN from the book of destruction stick with the amplified, cjs or kjv or the FIRST one Torah in Hebrew, my personal favorite
Ha'Elyon HaG'dulah BaM'romim is my Sh'Khinah - or ESV it seems. Or the Geneva translation, perhaps?
Yeah, kinda weird, I saw this too while listening to Heiser's lectures on Hebrews. They worded the verse in Luke 11:49 so that the Wisdom of God wasn't the one speaking. I looked up the Greek, and it should in fact be translated to "the Wisdom of God said", not NIV's version "God said in His wisdom".
This gave me a headache.
I'm wondering why Ham wasn't judged or cursed for raping Noah's wife. (I'm hoping she wasn't his actual mother.) It may be a modern view on the situation of Ham trying to usurp Noah's place by sleeping with his wife, but going with this interpretation leaves me wondering why his immediate violence against her wasn't even mentioned. It may not have mattered to the society of the time what the woman thought about what happened to her, but since a rape is involved, it seems like more than a matter of a cultural difference, and I'm disturbed God is silent about it, at least in this passage.
Joan Arnold he was exiled.. him and his family after that went into Africa.. there still there today.. Ham is the father of blacks, browns, and Arabians.. yet they didn't build the pyrimids.. the pyrimids were found empty after the receding waters.. so they moved in.. y not the hybrid race was whipped out for they were not of God.. they are still here today as demons, ghosts.. the Bible says they are wondering evil spirits..
Keith Kitchen well I read so much.. I could be wrong.. yet it is either in the Bible or the book of Enoch... Iv read them both so much that I honestly think I combine them.. lol.. the wondering spirits are the ones who lost there lives in the flood.. the hybrids.. the ones who where devouring mankind..
Perhaps Noah could not curse Ham because God had already blessed Noah’s sons- to be fruitful and multiply.
@Keith Kitchen john house uses christianity to feed his hatefullness and inspires others to do so.
Could he have laughed at his father?
Possibly mocked him. But it doesn't explain the curse, unless the point is that Noah was a terrible drunk.
It's all confusion and idea.....There is no sense in this!!!
I'm less confused about this than Canaan being cursed for an accident he wasn't a part of, an accident that didn't even seem sinful.
exactly... this theory makes Noah look like a madman on a thirst for revenge to curse his innocent grandson and Ham look like a power hungry rapist. Doesn't make sense to me either, I don't believe it happened.
This correct,this explain cannan.simple he would not inherit anything,probly where the eviel cannanites came to Israiel in times of Moses and Joshua and all there pagan worship,Sodom Gomora,fits perfect.
23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father...........If uncovering means sexual relations.....What does "covered the nakedness of their father" mean then?
Adrian Teoh they covered Noah's wife.
You don't understand "Parallelism"!
Adrian Teoh lol.. there fathers nakedness is explained in laviticus.. u need to go read and understand that first..
lol. I know lev 18 and 20. you dont even understand basic paralleism is th bible haha!!!
Noah's wife was not drunk. She could have covered herself instead of waiting for her sons to cover her !? ???
We don’t know the answer to that question, maybe since she was raped she was sitting or lying there crying naked, maybe it was a symbolic gesture, maybe she was drunk also, just because it says Noah was drunk it doesn’t say if she was or wasn’t. We have no information in the scriptures of Noah’s wife other than she entered the ark with him. We can only speculate. Either way this is the best explanation I’ve heard and scripturally it is sound.
Ham forced himself on his mother. She was probably unconscious from the struggle or beating he may have given her to make her compliant. Rape is violent.
The Talmud also teaches the lie about Ham
I'm not convinced that to see or uncover the nakedness generally mean sexual intercourse.
Exo 20:26 KJV Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy (referring to the priests) NAKEDNESS be not discovered thereon.
Exo 28:42 KJV And thou shalt make them (referring to the priests) linen breeches to cover their NAKEDNESS; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Your two examples are both in COMPLETELY different contexts than the verse discussed and are very obviously not applicable. The countless examples he cited from scripture are in the same context and relevant to the discussion. What you cite isnt and is simply other random usage of the word "nakedness" in the Bible.
@@andrewlightbody4221 UNCOVER and COVER are opposites. If uncovering the nakedness of Noah was a sexual act, how can Shem and Japheth act reverse that sexual act by covering their father.
@@noelinuae7554 I suspect you might have missed the point about "hot potatoe". He showed pretty clearly from Leviticus that for someone to uncover another persons nakedness indicates a sexual act. The verses you quoted are not about one person uncovering another persons nakedness, rather about making the priests cover themselves so they don't walk about naked or have an accident where they show private parts in the wrong situations, like before the altar of God.
This isn't all that important, but I don't see why you'd disregard this view. It actually does make more sense than other theories I've heard. When I read this incident I was very confused, as are most people. Accidentally looking at you father while he's naked doesn't seem very sinful. The explanations of homosexuality or testicle-removal doesn't seem to justify Canaan's curse.
@@krissmork Thanks for your response. This video compelled me to write an article on this subject and just posted the link. Kindly take the time to read it.
@@noelinuae7554 I can't seem to find the link.
Thanks for your time and effort to give insight, though, brother. Jesus bless you with all spiritual understanding and wisdom, and above all else love, without which we are nothing. Much love to you, brother. In Jesu name, amen, to God be all glory.
My proposal is the Watchers genes were still among the 8 that boarded the Ark.Noah wanted to find out who it was passed to.(Ham) by "laying uncovered"
Adrian Teoh u truly are an idiot.. damn..
i did not claim sorcery lol
Adrian Teoh Noah wanted to find out bye lying uncovered.. drunk and passed out bye the wine.. u ever been passed out?? Clearly he was passed out.. obviously Noah's wife was drunk right along with her husband in there tent.. again the nakedness deals with sexual acts with a father's wife.. Noah awoke and new what Ham had done unto him.. obviously Ham rapped his mother in law.. and she bore cannan.. Bible clearly says. Ham is the Father.. and brother to Shem and japheth.. for u to say Noah wanted to find out whom was the carrier of the nimplims genes is kinda far fetch. Specially when there is no inclination of this ever mentioned in the Bible..
Keith Kitchen assume.. it's right there..in the Bible.. there is no assuming... It's called reading, studying, and collecting information that the Bible holds.. the Truth.. for it one must search for it.. yet it's not hard..
Adrian Teoh it's fine to have an opinion, but yours is not backed up by any other scripture.
It's my understanding from Dr. MISSLER that you don't curse the son because it reflects on the father. To curse Ham would have been a negative reflection on Noah. By cursing Canaan it reflects on the sin of HIS father Ham. Simple. Sorry don't buy your view. Plus how did Noah know his wife had been raped? He'd definitely know if HE'D been!
She's not raped.
God did not curse Ham. Noah did not curse Ham.
Noah cursed Canaan.
I doubt there is a pure ethnic bloodline from Noah's children, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. I theorize all ethnicities have some Jewish genetics in their bloodlines, just as all Jews have some genetics from all other ethnicities in their bloodlines. Judaism is a religion, not a race. If you believe in the flood story, there is only one race originating from Noah, unless you believe the curse on the line of Canaan created a sub-race of slave people's to serve Shem and Japeth. I believe Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed by Noah because Canaan was Noah's wifes child by Ham, Ham (uncovered Noah's nakedness), Noah's wife, it was incest between Ham and his mother, Noah's wife. So Noah, the patriarch, cursed Canaan, his wifes son by Noah's son Ham. Sugar coating scripture is a form of false teaching. I have no respect for weak bible teachers with no courage to interpret truthfully.
Genesis 9:25-29 NLT - Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham:
“May Canaan be cursed!
May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives.” Then Noah said,
“May the LORD, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and may Canaan be his servant! May God expand the territory of Japheth!
May Japheth share the prosperity of Shem,
and may Canaan be his servant.” Noah lived another 350 years after the great flood. He lived 950 years, and then he died.
Notice Ham was not cursed, just Ham's son, Canaan. Please don't confuse Ham's, with Hamas. Hamas is Canaan.
Those poor women.
Understatement of many teachings...
Your last point is inherently contradictory. Did the white Europeans of yesteryear who first encountered the darker races think of them as descendants of Ham (and thus from Adam) or as "alternate-Adamic?"
Either way, applying the "curse of Ham" toward these races was not an a priori exegesis made by biblical illiterates; but rather an attempt to explain the dysfunction, primitiveness, and barbarism of these foreign peoples. Sure, the attempt was not textually valid, but your anger toward bewildered the Christian Europeans who sought to understand the human sacrifice and cannibalism they encountered is in bad taste.
In summary, this answer was predicated on 21st century political ideology (political correctness), not a serious look at the biological and theological issues surrounding race.
How did Noah know that Ham will name the son by Noah's wife,Canaan if he is not born yet?He could give the son a different name to avoid the curse...Canaan must be alive before the event !!!
Adrian Teoh use ur brain..
Please be explicit thanks.Fathers name their sons...
Adrian Teoh this is written bye Moses looking back into the past.. yet threw Moses God told the story.. the holy spirit..
Yes.But what Noah said was written in inverted commas meaning that was precisely what he said. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
“Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
26 He also said,
“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem;
and let Canaan be his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth,[d]
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his servant.” .........................................................How could Noah curse someone that has not yet born or named yet unless Canaan is already alive !!!
Adrian Teoh how can u prove that.. obviously the story involves a nine month period.. Ham came out told his brothers and was exiled.. he went into what is known as Africa.. Noah couldn't curse cannan untill he was born.. so in all these verses contain at least a 9 month period.. common sense dictates this.
This is a very wrong interpretation just like the other interpretations. You guys are sick thinking and accommodating verses of the Bible to come up with such a thing. By the way look up tent and see what it means. Because is not what you think it is.
@Raymond Santiago, what does it mean?
When keeping in mind the fragments of Enoch that tell of Noah's birth...he was radiant....then reading in Jubilees that Noah had the "garments" of Adam and Eve ....they were light beings....then Noah being uncovered of the garments that he inherited and his light was being revealed makes the reason for the sons walking backwards make more sense. He was shining. His GLORY was revealed! Later Nimrod inherited the garments that were hidden away by one of Noah's sons...they made Nimrod a "mighty man"...the 'part-angel' narrative fits. The garments made Noah mighty to build an ark...and for Nimrod to be a great hunter (of men's souls). They were made by the hand of God...they were imbued with powers.
Doesn't the phrase "hot potato" mean "something no one wants to handle" rather than "something that is controversial?" As in a game of "hot potato" where the potato is tossed, but whoever catches it immediately tosses it to another because it is too painful to hold? Explains ancient Semitic euphemism, does not understand contemporary one... "-)
The Real Killer B, I think both are true. A controversial topic is something that keeps getting passed on to, "the next guy", because whoever it gets, "tossed to", is either lacking in the skill or courage to handle it, so they quickly, "pass it on" to someone else.
Do you really think that was the important point of this entire message? A hot potato? Wow.
@@thingsilove7357 LMAO
Tent of Sarah was the cave she was burried in. They practice a tipe of council were thy were burried for wisdom.
Just like were Abel was buried and the Bethshemites held council their.
1 Samuel 6:18
And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced cities, and of country villages, even unto the great stone of Abel, whereon they set down the ark of the LORD: which stone remaineth unto this day in the field of Joshua, the Bethshemite.
2 Samuel 20:18
Then she spake, saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel: and so they ended the matter.
Luke 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
I think I disagree. As pointed out, offspring tend to be referred to as a tribe or people, so for uncovering nakedness, Noah could just be cursing the ancestry of Ham, that in and of itself might be the curse enough, not that it needs to imply anything.
Back then, what happened to your ancestry was treated like extremely important, so just cursing Ham's ancestors may have been enough of a punishment for revealing nakedness. I think acts of sexuality by Ham would have ended in stoning or something because that would be tainting a large part God's new human civilizations.
But I do see the possibility and acknowledge the logic.
Canaan is the youngest son of Ham so why not curse matazaryam? Egypt
____________
Canaan is also mentioned as the son of Ham before any of the other sons are mentioned so the emphasis is on him!
Canaan was born of incest plain and simple...
This is still only half the story. To get the rest you have to read Ex 20:26. It tells you a priest is not to approach the altar by way of steps less his nakedness be discovered. The Hebrew word for discovered is the same translated elsewhere as uncovered. So the Scripture is telling you a priest's nakedness being uncovered is literal not symbolic. Noah was perhaps the greatest priest other than Jesus and Melchizedek. So any reference to his nakedness must be considered at first as being physical not symbolic where someone slept with his wife. If you read Gen. 9 carefully Noah is naked in his tent exposed but no one else is mentioned. His nakedness is not caused by another human but by his drinking. He is already naked and exposed when Ham shows up in the story. This suggests the bible is referring to literal nakedness here not symbolic. You must also consider something else. These scriptures tell you Noah was a "JUST" man. But to be just you must punish the guilty and set the innocent free. Look it up. There are scriptures which tell you it is an abomination to set the guilty free or to punish the innocent. If you believe the maternal incest theory you believe that the person who caused Noah to be called a just person was in error. Apostle Peter says no scripture came in ancient time by any private interpretation or the will of man but holy men spoke as they were moved by the Spirit of God. So this is the Holy Spirit telling us that Noah is just, not a mere man. This interpretation suggests that Noah knew Ham had slept with his wife and she with him, he did nothing to condemn her, he did nothing to condemn him, but he condemns the innocent child because it may take away from his leadership. That is unjust and suggests the Holy Spirit erred when summing up Noah's character. There is one alternative. God is just. We have all sinned and come short of the glory. A just sentence on all of us is death. But because of Jesus who died on our behalf we can go free despite our sins. How does God remain just if he punishes his own innocent son and allows us to be free? Jesus said He laid down his life and He had power to take it up again. No man took his life from him. So it seems that because Jesus had an agreement with his Father to suffer this punishment and would be repaid for it by being given the Mechizedek priesthood and a name greater than all other names so that all knees would bow at his name, there is no injustice on God's behalf in punishing Jesus and allowing us to go free. Isn't this exactly what happened with Ham? His son Canaan stepped in on his behalf to receive the penalty of his sin. David talks about this in the Psalms saying : blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity. This is Ham's blessedness. It arises only because of Canaan. It is the same for all believers in Christ. If we are correct about this "theory" there will evidence of it. Because God is a rewarder and has rewarded Jesus for taking on himself the sins of other people so they can go free, when Canaan took on himself the sin of Ham so that his race could go free, God also had to reward him. Just as Jesus is given the Meclchizedek priesthood for his efforts, God being no respecter of persons might want to do the same for Canaan. If you look through the scripture you will see that Melchizedek does in fact show up around the time Canaan should have been around. He also calls on God using Canaanite names not Hebrew. And he only appears in Canaan land. Coincidence?
You said all that shyt and didn't say nothing...
First of all, amazing. Secondly, gross. Third, horrible!
And my question is: don’t the women have any say in this?
No
@@jayden1085 As long as there some percentage of women prefering sugar dads over teen younger but refugees this is sure to happen....!
I thought all Christians followed one of two courses when we interpret the Bible. We either are Dispensationalists or Covenant Theologists. If this is so, why are we applying Levitical laws to what transpires between Ham and his father Noah? Isn't this out of step with the framework we rely upon to interpret the Bible?
So here's my concern: "Why is no one giving any attention to what Scripture actually says, in that she preserves for us that "And Ham, the father of Canaan, SAW the nakedness of his father" (Gen 9:22)? Here, the verb is in the past tense which connotes that Ham is calling something into remembrance and that what he calls into remembrance bears inferences upon him being the father of Canaan. That is, there is something upon which Ham disagreed with his father Noah. Dr. Heiser stresses the importance of Idioms but fails to reckon the impacts upon any interpretation when the past tense of the verb see us used, as opposed to the present tense. Hint: the present tense connotes coveting, the past tense connotes calling something into remembrance. Even more so, we are breaking with Dispensational discipline when we apply future laws and commandments which are not in effect in the earlier biblical times. How do we reconcile these two concerns?
He is not applying levitical law to the issue. He is demonstrating that the language used is used elsewhere, including Leviticus to describe a specific act that is consistent in many other places. Think clearly man.
@@EdwinMendez91074, let's agree to your conclusion as to Dr. Heiser's intent. The gravity of his argument centers on treating "the nakedness of his father" (Genesis 9:22) as the idiom upon which he draws his comparisons with what he finds in Leviticus and Ezekiel. Well, if he's going to be consistent, why not make the same comparisons with the verbs you also find in Leviticus.
The idiomatic nature of the Bible's language pervades the entirety of Scripture, not just where we find it convenient to make those applications that appeal to the conclusions we seek. As for the verbs, Dr. Heiser relies on the reading of Leviticus 20:17 to cement his conclusion as for the sin Ham commits (and thus where you presume that Dr. Heiser is only making a comparison falls into shambles because he draws a conclusion). As for Leviticus 20:17, it reads: "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 20:17).
Here, in Leviticus 20:17 Dr. Heiser, for his comparison, relies on a passage that uses the verb "see" (Leviticus 20:17), which is in the present tense. While, when you consider what transpires with Ham in Genesis 9:22, here we have the past tense of the verb "see" as "saw," in that, "Ham, the father of Canaan, SAW the nakedness of his father" (Genesis 9:22).
What's so idiomatic about the "see" (Leviticus 20:17) and "saw" (Genesis 9:22). When, in the present tense, within the framework of the Levitical laws, it is an idiom of coveting. That is, "if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see (covet) her nakedness, and she see (covet) his nakedness; it is a wicked thing" (Leviticus 20:17). It is not like a brother or sister shall not ever see the other's nakedness. It is a matter is they each covets the other's nakedness and therefore desire each other. What makes it a "wicked" thing is because they are of the same father and or mother. There's nothing of a mystery between them. With incest, it is as if his sister lays with her father, who is in the presence of her brother. And for the man, it is as if he lays with his mother, which is in the presence of his sister. Thus, by this union, as male and female, the incestuous, confound, distort, and corrupt the image of God (Genesis 1:27).
With the verb "saw" (Genesis 9:22), however, the idiomatic inferences are very different. With the verb saw, the inference is that the principal observes a sabbath. That is, with the verb saw, it infers that the principal calls something into remembrance. This is of an especial importance with Ham as what immediately precedes the verb "saw" is the phrase "the father of Canaan" (Genesis 9:22). By this construction, "Ham, the father of Canaan, SAW the nakedness of his father" (Genesis 9:22).
The phrase "the father of Canaan" provides for us the spiritual clime in which Ham "saw the nakedness of his father" (Genesis 9:22). It is an allusion to the earlier mention of the same phrase in Genesis 9:18, the importance being by including the phrase "Ham, the father of Canaan" (Genesis 9:18). Moses makes us aware that something's transpired between the time Noah offers up his plenary sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22) and the ETERNAL FATHER having established with man, through Noah, the First Covenant (Genesis 9:12-17). We have the assurance of this since when all first disembarks from the ark, Scripture accounts for the constituency of Noah and his family who disembarked: "And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him" (Genesis 8:18).
Now, what's really shakes the ground underneath your feet, given all that mankind committed to Genesis 9:17-27, by which, we reckon as Noah's curse of Ham. Since even though Dr. Heiser attempts to resolve the sin today's theologians and authorities believe Ham committed. Their conclusion, being that Ham committed maternal incest. And that he did so for sundry reasons. It is understandable, however, why it is not a matter of exigency, but it is essentially an existentialistic given the foundation of western beliefs and thought rests on the bedrock of the Negro denigration and inferiority. Thus, there has to be some means by which to affirm Noah's curse of Ham to some degree that grants legitimacy to the legacy of Negro dehumanization, slavery, and subjugation. And what Dr. Heiser, as well as all other religious and spiritual authorities, fail to appreciate is that Canaan is not merely dead. Canaan is eradicated. Canaan is never again to visit the earth, since, as a result of the Third Punic War (149-146 BC), with the fall of Carthage, Canaan is no more. Thus, the denigration of the African, the advent of the Negro and the era of Negro slavery, dehumanization, and all the infamy this horrid legacy entails should have never been. Canaan is dead.
But here's what shakes the earth underneath our feet. It's that verb, "saw" (Genesis 9:22). And what is the reason why the verb, "saw" (Genesis 9:22) is so earth-shattering? It is because its the same means by which God saw. That when Scripture closes out the six days of Creation, she makes us mindful that: "God SAW every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31). That is, here, God performed a sabbath, in that He calls into remembrance all that He'd made.
Again, we find the same concern with God in the fallen generation of Noah when: "GOD SAW that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). What God "saw" (Genesis 6:5), in that He performs a sabbath by calling all things into remembrance. God saw how the "sons of God" departed from the way of the LORD as they took unto themselves "the daughters of men" for wives (Genesis 6:2).
And so, if it was Dr. Heiser's intent to only make a comparative analysis of the idiomatic nature of the language within the Bible. Then there should be no great consternation over making a clearer analysis with how, just as God "saw" (Genesis 1:31 and 6:5), so too did Ham see as God saw. In that "Ham, the father of Canaan, SAW the nakedness of his father" (Genesis 9:22).
He used it as context to decipher the meaning of a particular phrase. He didnt apply levitical law to interpret what went down. That doesnt even make sense....
@@ivanalexander7 Are you on drugs?
@@andrewlightbody4221, he used it wrongly and did so in a narrowly defined context to fit his presumptions (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). What's actionable are the verbs, as the verbs establish the spiritual clime through which we make our analysis. That is, there's a vast difference between "saw" and "see." Thus, by this difference, the connotations of "the nakedness of his father" are vastly different.
I believe the sin of Ham was well written in the Book of Jasher and it was the stealing of the garments of skin that God made for Adam and Eve from his father Noah. I put it here in quotations:
”And the garments of skin, which God made for Adam and his wife, when they went
out of the garden, were given to Cush. For after the death of Adam and his wife, the
garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God,
he gave them to Methuselah, his son. And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them
and brought them to the ark, and they were with him until he went out of the ark. And in
their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and
hid them from his brothers. And when Ham begat his firstborn Cush, he gave him the
garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days. And Cush also concealed them
from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those
garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years
old he put on those garments.”
If Ham stole garments from Noah then why did the sons cover him back up?
So Noah was wearing the garments when Ham jacked them from off his body!
I contend that, what happened to Noah's wife is also what happened to Eve.
When YHVH looks for Adam and Eve, and they say they they were afraid because they were naked, He asks "who told you you were naked?". YHVH had told them to be fruitful and multiply earlier and He had made them so they were not ashamed to stand before him before. Adam's nakedness had been uncovered by Lucifer in the form of a snake. Cane was the product of that incounter. Abel came about 70 years later when Adam was 100 years old. Genesis does not say the two were twins or born at the same time. The decendants of Cane (the seed of the serpent, the gods of Egypt) rule this earth through the bloodline of Ham's wife.
@Mary Hornbostel
Genesis does give information that implies Abel and Cain were twins. It doesn't at all imply nor state explicitly that Abel came 70 years later..
Interesting that some think that Cain and Abel were twins. I don't see that language at all. But I guess it could be a remote possibility. It sure seems that the text would clearly indicate that Eve gave birth to two sons and not say "I have gotten a manchild, (singular), with the help of the Lord," Gen. 4:1. Also, the only mention of a timeline for a descendant of Adam's would be when Seth was born. Gen. 5:3 says Adam had lived 130 years when he became the father of Seth. No one else that was born to Adam and Eve had their birth time noted. Keep reading and working Mary. Lots of false claims you are making here.
@@willowbrook2717
I think the evidence for twins is quite compelling. And not everything in the bible is explicit. There are many things that are left to us to figure out.
@@eew8060 ultimately that debate is worthless. It doesn't add nor take away from the narrative. I see zero reason to believe that they were twins. Its like saying Eve gave birth to triplet girls one year after Able was born. Doesn't matter and it can't be proven. The only verifiable fact is that Cain and Able were brothers and Cain murdered his brother out of jealousy and anger toward God for not accepting his offering.
@@willowbrook2717
Actually the idea of twins has quite a bit of explanatory power for the text.