Noah’s Nakedness and Canaan’s Curse (Genesis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2021
- A quick look at the unusual story found in Genesis 9 about Ham seeing Noah’s nakedness and Canaan’s curse that resulted it from it.
www.119ministries.com/support...
Follow the above link to partner with 119 Ministries and support ongoing free teaching production.
If you would like to discuss this video with us, we invite you to join the discussion on the teaching page found on our website or reach us privately through the Contact Us form on our website: 119ministries.com/contact-us
Thank you so much for your continued and prayerful support. May YHWH bless you and keep you.
Shalom
Wow! Those verses in Genesis are deeper than I ever realized!The Holy Bible is so deep and profound and discreet! Your analysis and discussion has educated me on these verses which in times past I read and didn’t really grasp.
Noah got drunk and passed out and was violated by Ham’s sin. That sin was adultery. Adultery would make any dad or husband angry. Out of anger, after Noah had recovered from his drunkenness, he blesses Shem and Japheth but not Ham. Ham had impregnated his own mother and tried to usurp the position and authority of his father Noah. Noah, out of understandable wrath, curses his step son Canaan. By not forgiving Ham and doing this curse out of anger, Noah, the father of all humanity, accidentally curses his entire family line because we are all inter-related, of one blood, descendants of Noah as Acts 17:26 reminds us. When Noah’s ark rested on Ararat, the whole earth had only one family - Noah’s family. Just 8+ souls survived the global flood!
To understand the gravity of this portion of scripture and what happened, one must read the book of Job, realizing that this entire existence we live is about the spiritual war between God and Satan. This is not entirely about human beings. Until we understand that, the events of this world are not fully understood because our five senses cannot see the full picture of reality just as a dog cannot see all the colors that a human being can see! Some of that information is not seen by a dog. Likewise, there is much information that we humans cannot see because they go beyond the reach of our five senses.
Clearly Satan corrupted Ham’s mind and poisoned him with carnal emotions and wrong thinking. Ham takes full advantage of his drunken father who passes out and usurps his position as father and violates his authority by committing adultery with his mother. Like Satan, who wants to usurp God and take over God’s position and authority, Ham did the same thing to his father Noah.
Noah was understandably wroth! After he recovered from his drunkenness, he blessed Japheth and Shem, who respected his position and role and authority as father but didn’t bless Ham who made Noah’s wife pregnant. Canaan was born out of adultery from Noah’s wife’s womb. Noah, out of anger, curses Canaan.
The righteous are not always right but they are still righteous. Noah, like Moses and Lot and Simon Peter, isn’t perfect but they are still righteous individuals. By cursing Canaan, the entire world is adversely affected by the curse of Noah upon Canaan, which is rejection of God and false religions. The sin of Ham, which is adultery, exists all over the entire world. Rejection of God and false beliefs also exist all over the earth! This is a war between God and Satan! Satan does not want human beings to believe in God! Satan wants to kill destroy and lure souls into damnation. Every time God resets and begins a new dispensation for humanity, fallen Lucifer or Satan, is eager to destroy that!
The flood marked the end of one period and the family of Noah began a new reset for humanity and Satan was determined to destroy that reset unfortunately and Satan did as he did in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3!
Thank you so much for this clear, concise teaching! When I first read the passages regarding Canaan’s curse, all I could say was “huh?” 😄 This cleared it up greatly.
Seems like a logical explanation. Now, can we stop saying that "ALL of Ham's children were cursed"? It was only Canaan. Cush, Mitzraim, and Put were NOT cursed. All Black people don't come from Canaanites. So, enough with saying all Blacks were cursed because of a bad rumor and lie. Just thought folks ought to know that. Thank you for sharing. Shalom.
the same text said whats happened, dont look in another book, read the same chapter
gen.9:24 theres the answer..... can you see it? ........
@@1clemex hmm, I'm seeing that Ham discovered his son Canaan in an act with Hams drunken father (Noah) and seen his nakedness. When Noah woke up from his drunkenness and learned what his youngest son had done to him... likely the same action that occured in sodom. Noah said cursed be Canaan.
Remember that even grandchildren were called the sons of the patriarch.
Christ is still called son of David even though hundreds of years passed before christ's birth.
Ham just happened to be the father if the culprit but only the doer of the bad action, Canaan was cursed.
In the same chapter, Ge 9:22 sheds even more light than Ge 9:24. We learn that Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. What on earth did he tell them? If he had just committed some kind of violent or despicable crime, would he tell his brothers? In such a case, wouldn't Ham deserve some sort of rebuke?
You're definitely right. All of Ham's children were blessed (Ge 9:1) As a matter of fact, History shows that Canaan's offspring were as blessed as anybody else.
@@racinehorsinaround3630 yes you got it, everything is in the same text
This is the first time for me to hear the 4th interpretation and now those scriputes suddenly make sense to me. Thank you
Yes yes and yes, thank you for going to such detailed explanations and research! Keep it up to glorify Yah!
Excellent Textual interpretation. As a Bible teacher, I’ve taught this 4th interpretation for 32 years
It doesn’t explain Canaan already being born and being cursed by name if the incident just occurred that day.
@@BrendaJones492 Because Moses compiled the Text hundreds of years later, there are many anachronisms found within. Therefore, Moses could easily say Noah cursed Canaan if at the time Noah only cursed whatever offspring came about of Ham and Mrs Noah's episode. None of Noah's sons had any children that went into the ark with them.
Many events are condensed or telescoped because of writing or compiling the information later. Micah 5:2 is used to pinpoint the Messiah's birthplace, but in verse 5 and 6 we learn of his conquering the Assyrian at presumably Yeshua's 2nd coming as Conquering King.
@@sigalsmadar4547 Thank you. That makes sense!
Whoa
@@BrendaJones492 I don't think the timing of Canaan's birth is a problem, because when Moses was given this history to record all of the events were past. So, as the Holy Spirit inspired him to write, he filled in details that are important to the events but were yet to happen when the event in focus occurred.
We see this throughout Genesis as the events are interpreted while they are presented. We are told the significance on the timeline of redemptive history.
Wow!! This is an exciting interpretation of the scripture, great job and good explanation.
Thank you for clearing this topic up for me. I often wondered exactly what Ham did and why was his son cursed but never brought it up to anyone due to the delicate nature of the topic. Thank you and praise God for a ministry that gets to the truth in all matters.
I believe I got the same revelation about a year ago. Appreciate your Insight!
This is what I came to after studying the matter off and on for years, it basically tells us when we see the term used and explained in Leviticus.
Thanks for the transparancy regarding the subject
I had heard this and it made sense but the added details you brought have made it make even more sense. I'll continue to study, but I think this is a winner. Thank you.
The extra detail he adds not only validates my theory, but it makes it crystal clear now.
This explanation doesn’t work either. Noah cursed Canaan as soon as he woke up. That means Canaan was already born.
@@iam2908 Gen 9:25 do not have 'And' at the beginning of the verse in the Hebrew, hence it does not mean that this was immediately after the act. Scripture actually gives precedence for it being and end-of-life blessing/curse similar to what was done by Abraham, Isaac and even Jacob since verse 28 went on to speak about his length of years and he died.
Furthermore, this was a prophetic utterance, so it could simply be that Noah spoke prophetically about Canaan especially since his very name come from Hebrew Kana which means to be humbled or subjected. Thus Noah spoke prophetically the name of this son and what would befall him. Either options are available which makes perfect sense.
Wao! This blew my mind ! Im so thankful and bless for what i heard !
Excellent as usual!!!
Good word. Well.done
Great explanation!
This is excellent work brother
Thank you So Much
thank you, brothers
Thank you for helping clarify this confusing passage.
WOW! I loved this
I did too, Debbie.
Wow!
Brothers-- you nailed this one!!
Thank you so much for sharing your work!
MayYHWH bless you and keep you in the name of His Son - Yeshua The Messiah
David, Thank you for this! Your study validates something that I've suspected for years.
Wow! Thanks!
Thank you. This explanation is biblically sound and very logical. It rings more true that any other explanation I've ever heard. Well done!
Excellent. Very helpful in my understanding of this text.
Take this for what it’s worth and excuse any typos/confusion. Feel free to point out issues or confusion to seek clarity on my opinions.
My scattered notes on my iPhone as I watched:
Gen 2-3 man and woman were naked, no problem. After eating the fruit there eyes are opened and they are able to see that they are naked and they feel shame. Adam tells god he was scared because he was naked and god says who told you you were naked did you eat from the tree? They covered themselves with fig leaves and after the interaction with Yah, he covers them. I wonder why. To me it seems to be because now they can see good and evil so the righteous thing is to cover up nakedness. Seems to show that 👉seeing👈 nakedness is problematic, maybe even sinful.
Gen 9
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Noah gets drunk and uncovers (1540 gaw-law) himself. Does that mean he was naked or does it mean that he was naked and he had sex with his wife? Or was prepared to? Simply reading the text says Noah became “disgracefully naked” (different from becoming naked to bathe or change for example).
Ham sees (7200. raw-aw) his fathers nakedness, not uncovers (gaw-law).
I don’t see any sexual implication to the word raw-aw. It does have the implication of staring, viewing, thinking, to spy, gaze, enjoy, have experience, etc. this might very loosely allow the assumption of maybe ham lusting after his dad?
The video says it was a sever punishment and then asks, was Noah just really insecure? Seems to belittle the idea that looking (gazing) upon ones nakedness could in fact be a punishable sin. Wilbur says “it seems unlikely” that the sever punishment was just for ham seeing Noah. 1. The word shows more than just seeing
2. That is what the text explicitly says. Anything beyond that is to presuppose something into the text.
Gaw-law
to denude (especially in a disgraceful sense); by implication, to exile (captives being usually stripped); figuratively, to reveal -- + advertise, appear, bewray, bring, (carry, lead, go) captive (into captivity), depart, disclose, discover, exile, be gone, open, X plainly, publish, remove, reveal, X shamelessly, shew, X surely, tell, uncover.
At 3:00 min the Bergsma and Hahn reference assumes that the camp of saying the problem was that Canaan physically saw his dad naked thinks it was an accidental look upon Noah being naked. I would make the case (based on the word raw-aw) that he more so gazed, spied, enjoyed etc. his dads nakedness.
Vs 24. Why assume that the brothers didn’t tell Noah what happened? Why is the automatic assumption that Canaan must have done something for Noah to have known? Simply something like “hey dad here’s what happened and so we walked in backwards and covered you up. Something is off with Ham.”
Around 3:40 again Wilbur assumes that the case is that it was only passively looking upon.
Around 5:14
While to “uncover nakedness” can be and is an idiom for sex. To “see nakedness” does not seem to be an idiom for sex. Again uncover = gaw-law and see = raw-aw are two different words. Raw-aw is literally associated with the eye(s)
Wilbur makes a case on lev 20:17 and says that to see nakedness and to uncover nakedness are equated but the translation could certainly have two different concepts simultaneously. Being: to look upon, stare at, gaze upon your brother or sisters nakedness is shameful, disgraceful and you are cut off from your people. The second concept can be separate (note the lack of grammar in Hebrew/Greek) and can be translated to say if you uncover (gaw-law) your sisters nakedness, you will bear your iniquity.
*look up Leviticus 20:17 in Hebrew, literal translations and Septuagint.
Around 6:48
The sense of the word gaw-law is not necessarily to “derobe in preparation of sex”, but rather to be naked in a disgraceful manner.
Why even make this point about them being abundantly cautious as to not even look if the argument is that seeing someone naked isn’t a problem. Also, just that, why would Shem and Japheth go through all of the physical preparations to not see if seeing was a nonissue?
Is it really correct that to see nakedness is an idiom for sex in the Hebrew? Raw-aw (to see) is to literally see, gaze, stare... gaw-law (uncover) is to literally denude disgracefully. In the case of lev 20:17 seeing nakedness is to gaze upon ones nakedness/shame but uncovering nakedness is to disgraceful denude ones nakedness/shame.
In regard to the nakedness of the father being the wife, meaning to uncover the fathers nakedness means you’re actually uncovering your fathers wife: while that is true it is not only that. A fathers nakedness is also that of his own nakedness. See ylt of lev 18:7-8 as well as literal Hebrew words used, as well as Septuagint.
The translation Wilbur uses says “you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother...” this is inaccurate. The actual text says do not uncover your fathers nakedness (and) do not uncover your mothers nakedness. Then goes on to say your mothers nakedness is your fathers nakedness. The text Wilbur uses does a disservice to the text to show that the fathers nakedness is actually the fathers wife’s nakedness only.
He says that his 4th interpretation is the only interpretation that provides an explanation as to why Canaan was cursed. I disagree, why can’t the explanation for the curse on Canaan be as simple as: it’s the same thing Yah does, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the 3rd and 4th generations. Same concept. It’s more of a punishment to watch your children suffer for your crime than for you yourself to suffer for your crime.
He says there are biblical examples (plural) (maybe there are multiple examples?) of people sleeping with the wives and or concubines of others to usurp authority and gives one example. For whatever it’s worth.
Around 12:22
I’m not seeing the feminine suffix attached. Maybe I’m missing something.
Even in gen 24:67 I’m not seeing that the masculine is used?
The word ohel (h169) is a masculine noun translating to tent and is the word used in both cases. The word oholah (h170) is the feminine noun translated as her own tent. This word is not used in either case from what I see?
Shem and Japheth walk backward with a cover over their shoulders and their faces backward to cover their fathers nakedness. It’s safe to say they did not see (raw-aw) their father. 1. Why walk backward if seeing is not a problem (Some say “out of respect”)(is that not a cultural relevance for us? Is it ok to assume it was “disrespectful” to see someone naked in their time and culture? Especially if we’re making the case that seeing was not the problem?) 2. Why even go in the tent in the first place if the problem was that he slept with Noah’s wife? Why not stay out and just tell Noah what Canaan told them, when Noah becomes conscious again? 3. If the problem was that Canaan slept with Noah’s wife and that’s what it means by saying Noah was uncovered, was Noah even naked or just passed out drunk? 4. If Canaan slept with Noah’s wife and that was the issue, who did the brothers go in to cover, Noah or his wife or both of them? 5. Was Noah’s wife also drunk? 6. Did she consent? 7. If so why no punishment for her mentioned?
Also how did Noah curse Canaan if Canaan wasn’t already present at the time of this happening? I see no merit for saying that Noah prophetically cursed Canaan and that Canaan wasn’t yet born but was the offspring of ham sleeping with Noah’s wife. It reads as though Canaan was on the scene already. Especially because Noah says “cursed be Canaan”. Did he prophecy that the offspring of the event would be named Canaan? If that were the case did ham choose to name his son Canaan because Noah said “cursed be Canaan”?
Around 14:20
So much assumption and reading into the text to come up with that conclusion. It doesn’t actually say any of that. I tend to agree with the first quote from bergsma and Hahn about: the strength of the position of ham seeing his father naked is that it doesn’t see anything into the text that isn’t explicitly there. Wilbur opens up by saying this position simply takes the text for what is says. Is that not what we’re supposed to do? Assuming of course that we have an accurate translation in front of us. That is faith.
14:59
Why can’t the reason for mentioning that ham is the father of Canaan simply be to remind you of this particular event (immediately after the flood whose purpose was to eradicate wickedness and start over) itself and that it is a cursed lineage and the severity of presumptuous sin in general?
I understand this text in this particular manner it was Canaan who slept with Noah's wife most certainly his grandmother, and informed his father Ham and what he did was go into the tent and confirm this and fazed upon his naked father and mother, and informed his brothers of what had happened by this understanding it seems Canaan was directly cursed because he already present.
@@legendarytruth_t8265 yes i always thought something similar, what people don't understand is in old Hebrew the word "son" can sometimes mean descendant or grandson Jesus himself even said "I am a son of David" I believe the part in genesis where it says "knew what his younger son had done to him" He is actually referring to Canaan and not Ham. The word "younger son" meaning grandson instead of youngest son. People always assume Ham is the youngest of the three sons when Genesis places Hams name as the second son in this order Shem,Ham,Yapheth.
Thank you for taking the time to write all this!!! The arguments I was looking for.
An excellent literal analysis. However, a purely literal analysis renders this story to have no sensical meaning.
I am sure people spoke and wrote using colloquialisms. Example in modern language: I accuse you of sleeping with your mother and put a curse on your son for a consequence. Despite your protestations that you were just a baby when it happens, I insist that sleeping with your mother is a sin. Period.
I am a huge believer in never adding to the word, and a lot of crazy rabbinical garbage has been added by doing so, trying to mentally fill in the gaps, but this story either literally means nothing, or there is a lot more to it.
To go even further, it could be that Ham wasnt cursed because he was already put to death for such a grievous crime. That would make Hams wife a widow, and the only available man for her to marry would be Noah, thus making up for the fact that Noah could no longer have sex with his first wife, as she was permanently defiled.
Everything makes almost perfect and consistent biblical sense in this context.
Mums the word. GOD bless🙏❤️
Shalom, shalom. I was thinking about this two days ago, I feel like the Lord was speaking to me about this, Noah couldn’t curse ham, because he was blessed by God after the flood. So he cursed Canaan the product of ham’s unfaithfulness, and implicated ham in the sentence. As a way to humble him, for his pride. Moses wrote the whole Torah. And therefore we can conclude that the phrase nakedness of the father has the same meaning in Genesis and Leviticus.
This explains completely, why Canaan was cursed - I had always tripped over this one, but failed to realise the blessing that was upon Ham. May the grace of Jesus be with you.
Excellent insights you have shared! The last explanation seems to be apt and addresses the scriptures in the best light..Todah rabah!
Very good young man, I've seen this from the beginning and have taught it this way also. We must always remember that the text will interpret itself correctly every time.
Also well done on how you gave the 3 views mostly held then went to a 4th that you didn’t speak on until explaining the 3rd view. Well done!
And Noah began to be a husbandman; and he planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered in his tent "(Gen. 9. 20).
Ah! Here we have another clue as to Noah's identity. He was during summer the heathen Dionysus or Bacchus, Noah, Dionysus or Bacchus was drunken. As there is scarcely a nation or tribe of people on the face of the earth, civilized or savage, but contrives in some way to get drunk, but more particularly at the season of the year here referred to, we cannot but feel that the language of the holy text, " and Noah was drunken," is exceedingly appropriate. But Noah or the earth was not only morally but physically drunken. * He had been whirled around so unceasingly in his journey to the nether regions, that his head had become dizzy; and having been shorn of his harvests, his verdure and his fruits, he fell down naked - "uncovered in his tent." But Ham, the father of Canaan, seeing the nakedness of his father, instead of covering him, as a dutiful son should do, i.e., if he could, goes off and tells his brethren without. Poor Noah! as the ends of the world (year) were upon him, he should have taken heed lest he fall (1 Cor. 10:11).
* 51 Drunken, but not with wine" (Isa. 51. 21).
But Shem and Japheth, like dutiful sons, as they were, took a garment (the snow of the one and the verdure of the other) and, so very modest were they, walked backward to cover their father's nakedness. No sooner, however, had Noah awakened from his wine and knew - for his two elder sons had taken good care to tell him - what his youngest son had done to him (which was just nothing), than he, like his great exemplar, God, fell to cursing, and like many who have but lately been aroused from their wine, was so much out of sorts, that he cursed one wholly innocent, one who had had nothing to do with the nakedness consequent on his grand- father's drunken rout ! It is entirely probable that as Ham had absconded, and could not be come at, Noah cursed the next of kin (Canaan), * who was within his grasp, and so vented his spite. This is entirely in keeping with the morality of savages, and I may add without departing widely from the truth, that this same feeling is not often found wanting among a class of people who style themselves Christians!
I must observe, however, much to the credit of poor Ham, that, as he was the departing summer, all he could do, for he must go on, he could not turn back, was to inform his two brothers who were behind, of their father's unhappy, not to say disgraceful, condition. But these two brothers, like many pious brothers now-a-days, taking advantage of his absence, instead of giving poor Ham credit for what he had done, set the old gentleman 'against their defenseless brother, by telling unseemly stories about him.
But why did these brothers walk backward to cover their father's nakedness? Because, by the geocentric hypothesis, the motion of the stars composing their constellations is retrograde with regard to the earth.
* Ham had four sons, of whom Canaan was the youngest. Ham being the four months of summer. Canaan, the last, would correspond to Scorpio. This fourth part of Ham will be noticed in connection with the Tower of Babel. Scorpio was always the accursed sign.
It is thought by some that Noah, while in his state of intoxication, was deprived of his virility. If so, it is no wonder the old man was so angry when he awoke. The sacred text, too, seems to favor this idea, as Noah lived 350 years after that, and had no more children' Canaan was suspected to have committed this irreverent act, and was punished in consequence. (Faber's Pag. Idol., vol. 1, p. 255.)
This certainly seems very logical and fits the biblical narrative! Great presentation!
Good video
Excellent explanations
Well done
And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”
So happy that I came across this channel, particularly this interpretation of scripture because I struggled with understanding why Noah cursed Ham and his son Canaan. It simply did not make sense to me. But now l leave with a much better understanding.
I’ve had a feeling Leviticus could be a reference for seeing his fathers nakedness, now I know for sure! Thank you for the study!
This most certainly lines up contextually. Especially given who the "canaanites" would become. Reuben and even Davids son would do this very thing to usurp power from their fathers.
no Rueben saw Jacobs wife's maid naked bathing in a river..they both got drunk and Rueben went into her tent and raped her while she was passed out. He did not do it to take Jacobs place..he did it because he was sexually immoral, horny - he even says it in details in Book of Rueben.
Canaan would be the Father of the evil GIANT Canaanite tribes. Giants through the hybrid genes of the Nephilim.
How does a genetically pure human man and a genetically pure human woman produce hybrid giants?
They were both from the last totally pure family on the planet.
They would have a totally genetically pure infant.
That scenario sounds like a very good one were it not for hybrid giants coming from genetically pure couple.
Thanks man . Keep up the good news work.
Shalom!
Very organized
Canaan was his first son. The text systematically denoted each lines first son. After he was cursed Canaan was named last of his brothers to denote his position being diminished.
I had heard this interpretation awhile back and I agree it makes the most sense especially considering explanation for Canaan being cursed
I was doing an essay about the Biblical Truth vs Greek religion and I found this story
This still has huge problems. How would Noah wake up and curse Canaan? That would require Ham sleeping with his mother, her conceiving a son and knowing this child's name in the time he woke up!
Wow....
One theory is that it is an edited version of a Greek myth in which Zeus sees Chronos naked and castrates him; another is that his wife was a human-nephalim hybrid, and since the flood was supposed to destroy all hybrids, this caused the Canaanites (their children) to be hybrids, requiring the Hebrews to kill them later.
i once heard, that noah was in possession of adams shroud that god gave to adam to cover his nakedness, ham stole it from his father. a reference of adams nakedness to noahs..
David Saprykin, They were covered with the skin of what is believed to be a spotless lamb, not a shroud, in reference to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world Rev 13:8-which is probably why we were taught that cavemen wore animal skins/fur!
Now that clarity has been brought to this passage, a followup review of Caanan's curse through the lineage and history of the Caananites would be good insight.
had this discussion with a work friend and we came to the conclusion that Noah's wife was in the tent, but it was hard for me to imagine him doing this because of what they just came through (the flood) and God spared them. how easy is it for us to fall?
Very easy, we see it all around us how easy it is to sin.
Very easy if he was drunk (wasted).
Please Fast Forward 10: minutes to get to the main Answer
Thx Dis opened up my mind beautifully now it’s time 2 dive n2 da rabbit hole 🫡💯
Shabbat shalom. Excellent teaching, God bless you!
Shepherd's Chapel (Pastor Arnold Murray) has been teaching the 4th interpretation forever.
A 5th possibility, some translations phrase it as when Noah was drunk, he "became uncovered in his tent" which could reference to him having relations with his wife, and Ham "Saw his father's nakedness" possibly referring to Ham walking in on the act, and then telling his brothers. Does leave a hole though when considering the text of his brothers putting garments on him and avoiding seeing their father's nakedness. But just a thought.
God bless you and thank you very much for explaining it. It confused me very much why noah man who was literally best person in his generation would curse his grandson I even thought that maybe after floud he became bad person but thanks to your video I was able to get right answer.
This was a wonderful explanation and teaching. Again, great stuff!
Scripture interprets Scripture. Fine job with the Holy Spirit
Genesis 9:1 says that: "God blessed Noah AND HIS SONS (emphasis mine...)..." So, Noah didn't have the power or authority to curse his son because God had already blessed him (as I understand it, you can't curse what God has already blessed...).
Why can it not be bad enough that Ham gossiped to his brothers and tried to bring shame on his father instead of respecting him unconditionally like his other 2 sons?
Wow why cant we just accept word 4 word what it says.
I think this explanation does more than any other!
What are you missing?
It is the glory of God to conceal things, the honor of kings to search them out. Much is hidden in the word. We are to search the scriptures. For what purpose? To show ourselves approved.
Ham simply seen his father naked. If he slept with Noah's wife the scriptures would have mentioned it like when Reuben slept with Jacobs wife.
Ham told his brothers and that is how Noah knew. He may have thought it was funny but in the sight of God it was wicked.
Yes yes speak on it Linda 👏 🙌
Humans love to complicate simple things.
I went to check the original Hebrew word for tent... it did not reveal a feminine tent, but a macular tent. This is also in Gen 24
QUESTION❗🤔💭
*GENESIS 9:25*
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Regarding the verse shown above,
Was *HAM'S* Son *CANAAN*
already alive at the time,
this incident occurred with *NOAH* ❓🤔💭
Shalom brother, as always you know how to bring it home with eloquence, all glory to Yahawah, shalom
This is what happens if the book that you trust doesn't give a detailed information, then what everyone does is guessing and interpreting by themselves.
I have read through the story of Noah and the drunken event several times and never once stopped to think about why Ham's curse was so severe. Never knew there were any other possible explanations than just the face value. Thank you so much for this explanation, it was eye opening and a great conversation starter with believers. Blessings.
Good teaching. I don't agree with the outcome but I will admit I probably need to study this more. I truly believe that ham saw his father his father naked, came out and told his brothers which was an embarrassment to him , Brothers went in covering him up to not see his nakedness, ham embarrassed his dad by telling his brothers, and Noah came out and cursed him. But again I need to study it more I could be wrong. Thank you for the teaching
This is how I’ve always understood this passage as well. Ham see’s his dad naked and instead of doing the right thing and covering Noah up, he embarrasses his father by telling his brothers what he just saw. Still doesn’t make sense why Canaan was cursed though 🧐. If Canaan was the product of an incestuous act, then it makes sense why he was cursed, but is that what is being told here?
Curiouser and curiouser...
Too basic
@@strineys.957 yeah, that's something to think about
Was Cannan born at that time then? Or was he the son of Ham and Noah's wife?
Gen 9:1, Num 23:19-20 This is the reason Ham was not the one cursed. As interpreted by scripture itself. check it out
I am confused by the passage of time in this story. If Noah woke up to find out that Ham had sex with Noah’s own wife, how would Canaan have been born and named already to be cursed??
I have heard a 5th option where Ham stole noahs garment. What is the importance of the garment? It was passed down from Adam from the garden. Ham then handed down the garment to cannan through to nimrod
shalom brother! i prayed for insight before reading genesis today, read this passage and thought it was a little extreme to enslave Canaan simply for seeing noah's butt. I knew there had to be more to this passage. I appreciate the knowledge!
As many believe that the book of Jubilees, although not considered canon, coincides well with the book of Genesis and is a reliable source of information, but, tells a different story about Noah's curse upon Cannan. In Jubilees 7:6-13 it describes Noah cursing Ham's youngest son, implying that Canaan at the time, already existed. In the fourth option, although plausible and in line with the description of "uncovering the fathers nakedness" in Leviticus, I'm conflicted by the passage in Jubilees enough to question Canaan as an offspring of Ham and his mother.
Shalom Betwixt the Waters,
You may be interested in watching and testing our "testing the book of Jubilees" teaching. You can find it here: www.119ministries.com/teachings/video-teachings/detail/testing-the-book-of-jubilees/
Blessings and Shalom
My understanding is that he looked upon his father's nakedness and mocking him went out to get his brothers and they brought a blanket and when in backwards so not to see their father and covers his nakedness. I think a lot of know it all's are over analyzing the scripture.
WOW... JUST WOW!!! 😳😱😱😱
What is the Hebrew literal translation say?
I think your interpretation makes the most sense, but I would be remiss if I did not mention another interpretation I've read. One interpretation I've seen offered is that in getting drunk to the point of disrobing and lying naked where anyone could see him, Noah had either sinned or otherwise behaved inappropriately. Ham saw him in such behavior, and rather than cover him up and have a talk with him later about his problem, instead decided to go and gossip about him to his brothers. He made fun of their father for falling short of what was expected of a man of God, when he should have pulled him aside to talk to him about his sin in love.
The curse of Canaan and his people seems a little extreme for that instance.... IMHO
Your explanation of the act with his mother would have already happened, since the verse is already speaking of a child ( Canaan), correct? Which bible version indicates a female tent? I can not find. Thank you.
It doesn't matter; it's just a story.
Do you have a channel on Rumble or Odysee?
Shalom,
No we don't but we do have a channel on Vimeo.
Hope this helps
Blessings and Shalom
11:59
I'm surprised scholars have any doubt over who's tent it was; they should know the tents belonged to the wives and the husbands just put their beds in the wives' tents (It's the reason Ruben resented Jacob not moving into Leah's tent after Rachel's passing). Once the husbands provided the tent, the wives were in charge of keeping it up and it was considered theirs
Wow! Mind blown🤯🤯🤯 Definitely going to research into this some more
Good luck. Anything that came through the flood is hidden from us. All we need to know is that Jesus lived a perfect life, died for our sins. His blood was shed for us. We who couldn't approach God until Jesus's death and resurrection.
@@BillyRoberts
No, many thinks prior to the flood is available today. The book of Enoch and others were brought on the ark.
Another thing to add about seeing a man's literal nakedness, (not his wife's), is it would be rather difficult to circumcise the men of a tribe. Kind of tough to do that deed if you are blindfolded!
So, WHEN did Noah wake up and curse CANAAN in that 4th option? I mean it looks like the 2 brothers response to what Ham did was immediate-not nine months later. So how in that moment does Noach 1) no his wife to be pregnant 2)that it would be a boy named CANAAN and that it was Ham who was the father with no possibility of the child belonging to Noach? When Noah awoke from his wine hand knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
i“Cursed be Canaan;”. It’s not like this curse came nine months later after a little boy was born and named Canaan.
at 5:59 -- Ezekiel -- 22:18 , 29 -- ?? these do not "talk" about nakedness - am I missing something or are those the wrong verses
One dilemma about the 4th option though is that Noah could not have cursed Cannan if he had not been born yet much less named already
I was thinking the exact same. As understand Cannan was then the son of Noah's wife and Ham?
I don't acceot that Ham raped his own mom. How would she give borth to it, know it was a son and randomly Ham names it Canaan? no. I think Canaan was already born while Ham saw Noahs nakedness.
This theory would be great except the text says Noah woke up to realize what his youngest son had done to him. The problem with that is Ham is not Noah's youngest son, its Japheth, how would we reconcile this?
Finally someone interprets this correctly
Also, to bolster explanation #4; The Canaanites were known for their immorality, including sexual sins, and even sacrificing babies to their gods.
Giants were also in Canaan, as well. It seems that sin bred true in Ham's offspring, and perhaps the second nephilim incursion occured through Ham.
Often the sins of the father are visited on the son, and his sons. Ham's sin, therefore could affect Canaanites for generations to come.
Nimrod also married his mother Semiramis, Cush’s wife. Semiramis was both the mom and grandmother to Tammuz.
119 Ministers doesn't accept the Jasher's canonocity. No point in bringing that up...
@@gravityfallscanada As far as I know, there are no ancient copies of Jasher to establish what he have currently as being valid and the same book that is sited in ... mmm Samuel.. or Joshua? Cant rmember offhand.. iirc the version of Jasher we have today was penned within the pas 600 years. So how accurate it is can not be reliably verified.
@@gravityfallscanada As opposed to Enoch. Putting any theological conclusions aside, there are fragments of Enoch found in the dead sea scrolls (dss) and the versions the Ethiopians have matches up. So we can comfortably say that the Enoch we read to day is likely the same Enoch that is mentioned in the NT since the dss date to about 150BC.
As to who actually wrote Enoch, well thats up for debate... not likely Enoch himself.
@@JasonAdank
Everyone always refers to the book of Jasher that was written recently. But always forget that the Ethiopian copy has been preserved for much longer. No sense in continuing this discussion comment is far outdated.
That was invented by Alexander hislop its not true. Every one has it out for Hams Decendants
This theory is great as it explains all the texts. However, it assumes that Ham's other 3 sons had been born at this time since Canaan was the fourth son?
Genesis 9:24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger grandson 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 [Joshua 9]. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant.”
Kind of a side note here about Noah's drunkenness, I heard it said that before the flood there was no fermented drink. Thus, after the water canopy collapsed, the atmospheric pressure and other scientific changes that Noah unknowingly drank his grape juice that had become wine. The change in the world's atmosphere had other lasting effects such as the age of man. It is noted that the long ages of man pre-flood fell drastically after the deluge.
Much Thanks for not shying away from this part of Torah, but letting scripture interpret scripture and showing me some of the Hebrew that leads towards a very plausible interpretation of what happened and its significance. Perhaps Ham's curse was unto the 4th generation? I am persuaded by the interpretation that Ham had sexual relations with Noah's wife rather than Noah himself and the transgression thereof was not just lust for sexual pleasure but for the theft of the father's authority.
No disrespect but that’s not in the scripture 😬 I feel like if it was to THAT… it DEFINITELY would had been written
Dear brother in Christ
Please follow
1 Corinthians 11:7
kjv "uncovered his nakedness"
The very same is used in Vayikra/Leviticus 20.11,17,18,20,and 21.
I will let you draw your own conclusions
Shalom
This is an excellent explanation. I agree. Good job.
This is the explanation I have always understood to make the most sense. Except....thy father's wife is not necessarily one's mother. Ham likely laid with his stepmother. Another wife of Noah. She did not have to be Ham's biological mother. The Bible distinguishes between the two by stating "they father's wife" for stepmother and "thy mother" for one's actual mother.
Interesting. Have you done a video on why God rejected Cain’s offering, but had no problem with Abel’s? Is it because Cain’s was seen as ‘works based’ and Abel’s was ‘faith based’?
True faith produces obedience (works). Cain was disobedient (rebellious/unfaithful), what’s to uncover there? Are you suggesting we believe (have faith) unto no works?
@@Dayday888. : No, as you’ve stated, true faith produces works amen. I’m confused about Cain’s offering, because prior to that, the Bible hasn’t said anything about Cain’s faith or lack thereof - Genesis 4:2-5 When they grew up, Abel became a shepherd, while Cain cultivated the ground. When it was time for the harvest, Cain presented some of his gift to the Lord. Abel also brought a gift - the best of the firstborn lambs from his flock. The Lord accepted Abel and his gift, but He did not accept Cain and his gift.
The Bible kind of ‘skips over’ going from Adam and Eve being sent out of the garden, to Eve giving birth to Cain then Abel and next paragraph the boys have grown and that’s when they give God their gifts - prior to this, there’s no clue as to their character. It’s only after God rejects Cain that we are shown his dark side.
Edit: Maybe Cain’s gift was mediocre then, because Abel’s was “the best of the firstborn from his flock”.
@@strineys.957 oh, ok. I guess I see it as though Cain knew beforehand the requirements, but didn’t fulfill them. As you say, there is not much to go on. Shalom.
@@strineys.957 what they were to bring was indicative/a "shadow picture" of Messiah/lamb's bleed-vegetables do not! Cain made it about himself-that is why his "offering" was rejected and when he was chastised, even then he didn't fulfill the requirement-but instead killed the one who did right!
@@carolbowen1693 : Thank you 😊.
Only question is why would the wife consent to this?
İ turned on the automatically generated subtitles and the language option is İndonesian instead of English.. 🤔