Help with Ham's sin with Noah

  • Thread starter Thread starter awfulthings9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

awfulthings9

Guest
In Scott Hahn’s online Scripture study at www.salvationhistory.com, he makes the following comments regarding the flood narrative:

"What’s going on in the story of Ham uncovering “his father’s nakedness” (see Genesis 9:22)? In Hebrew, this phrase is a figure of speech used to describe incest (Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18. Note: In other places besides the story of Noah and Ham, The New American Bible translates this phrase as “to have intercourse with.” The Revised Standard Version in all cases keeps the more literal translation “uncover the nakedness of.” See RSV-Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18).

To uncover the nakedness of your father is to commit incest with your mother. To state it bluntly, in all its brutality - while Noah was drunk, Ham slept with his mother. We don’t know what Ham was thinking. It could be that he wanted to seize power from his dad and this heinous act was his way of insulting Noah and showing his total disrespect (see similar episodes in Genesis 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4; 2 Samuel 16:21-22).

But notice that Noah doesn’t curse Ham. He curses Canaan - the son born of this incestuous encounter. Why Canaan? It’s another hint in the text of what Ham’s crime was. As we’ll see later, Canaan will be the founding father of a nation that will be known for its abominable practice of maternal incest (see Leviticus 18:6-18; Exodus 23:23-24).

Canaan is the bad fruit born of Noah’s sin. But as Adam bore both Cain, the slayer of his brother, and Seth the righteous one, Noah too has a good seed: his firstborn son Shem, who had tried to “cover” his father’s nakedness (see Genesis 9:23).""

I don’t see a problem with the incest concept, except that Shem tries to “cover” his father’s nakedness. If to uncover someone’s nakedness is to “have intercourse with”, exactly what was Shem doing to negate that, exactly? My only theory is that Ham literally did uncover his father’s nakedness after the incest as a sign of disgrace and Shem was literally trying to save some scrap of his dignity, but if the phrase is simply a euphamism, then I’m lost on the literal meaning of Shem’s action. Any help? And yes, I know that Hahn’s interpretation is not an authority, but I’d like to explore his theory and need help past that stumbling block. Take care.
 
Personally, I think Scott Hahn, a brilliant man whom I greatly admire, has over-thought this one. I think the text is literal and not euphamistic for the reason you suggest.

In the 1859 Haydock Commentary on Genesis 9:25 says, in part:But why should Chanaan [Canaan] be cursed for his father’s fault? The Hebrews answer, that he being then a boy was the first that saw his grandfather’s nakedness, and told his father Cham [Ham] of it; and joined with him in laughing about it: which drew upon him, rather than upon the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse. (Challoner)
 
As much as I respect Scott Hahn, I also believe that he is wrong about this one. I’ll mention two major reasons.

First, I cannot find that it is the opinion of any of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that Ham raped his mother. Perhaps I have not dug deeply enough, but St. Augustine certainly discusses this episode in Genesis with absolutely no reference to Ham raping anyone. For St. Augustine an understanding of this mysterious episode in Scripture is not that simple or that pat. He sees a mystical significance in the story of Noah’s drunkeness that alludes to the Passion. (See longer quote below.) "And so, too, the planting of the vine by Noah, and his intoxication by its fruit, and his nakedness while he slept, and the other things done at that time, and recorded, are all of them pregnant with prophetic meanings, and veiled in mysteries. " (St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVI, Ch.1) I find it unlikely that Scott Hahn has come to a new discovery in the second millenium that the early Church Fathers, themselves steeped in Scripture, were apparently unable to see.

Secondly, I find it unlikely that Noah’s mother, who must have been of a similar age as Noah would have conceived at an advanced age. Noah is mentioned in Gen. 7, 11 as being 600 years old when the flood began. If Noah’s wife could have been fertile at 600, why did she appear to have stopped bearing children by her own husband? None other than Shem, Ham and Japheth are mentioned in Gen. 10:1 at Noah’s death. “These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem Ham and Japheth.” Additionally, only about 140 years after Noah’s death, Abraham admits that he finds it hard to believe that Sarah could bear a child at age 90 (Gen. 17:17). So it seems hard to imagine that Noah’s wife, who apparently had only three grown sons and no small children, (unless she unnaturally abandoned them when the floods came) would have born a child conceived by rape at an advanced age of about 600.

(St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVI, Ch. 2:
*But the wicked brother is, in the person of his son (i.e., his work), the boy, or slave, of his good brothers, when good men make a skillful use of bad men, either for the exercise of their patience or for their advancement in wisdom. For the apostle testifies that there are some who preach Christ from no pure motives; “but,” says he, “whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” Philippians 1:18 For it is Christ Himself who planted the vine of which the prophet says, “The vine of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel;” Isaiah 5:7 and He drinks of its wine, whether we thus understand that cup of which He says, “Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of?” Matthew 20:22 and, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” Matthew 26:39 by which He obviously means His passion. Or, as wine is the fruit of the vine, we may prefer to understand that from this vine, that is to say, from the race of Israel, He has assumed flesh and blood that He might suffer; “and he was drunken,” that is, He suffered; “and was naked,” that is, His weakness appeared in His suffering, as the apostle says, “though He was crucified through weakness.” 2 Corinthians 13:4 Wherefore the same apostle says, “The weakness of God is stronger than men; and the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” 1 Corinthians 1:25 And when to the expression “he was naked” Scripture adds “in his house,” it elegantly intimates that Jesus was to suffer the cross and death at the hands of His own household, His own kith and kin, the Jews. This passion of Christ is only externally and verbally professed by the reprobate, for what they profess, they do not understand. But the elect hold in the inner man this so great mystery, and honor inwardly in the heart this weakness and foolishness of God. And of this there is a figure in Ham going out to proclaim his father’s nakedness; while Shem and Japheth, to cover or honor it, went in, that is to say, did it inwardly.
*
 
What was the sin of Ham, that he would be cursed by his own father? Although some theologians have speculated that Ham committed one serious sexual sin or another, Sacred Scripture says only that Ham saw the nakedness of his father. Ham was immodest. He looked on his father’s nakedness, and next he spoke about it to his brothers; he was immodest in what he saw and in what he said.

But this passage is not merely about the immodesty of one man, Ham. It is about the people of whom he was the father, Canaan. Now a man can be a father in two ways, either by literally (by blood) or figuratively (by some similarity). And so Abraham is said to have many descendents, both literally, in the Hebrew people, and figuratively, by similarity in way of life, in his spiritual descendents (Mt 3:9; Lk 1:55; 19:9; Rom 4:16).

Therefore, this passage from Genesis is not merely about the particular sin of immodesty committed by Ham on one occasion. Rather, it is about all the many serious sexual sins committed by the people of Canaan. The sin of immodesty committed by Ham in this particular case is used by Scripture as an example in order to teach that immodesty is the beginning of all sexual sins.

[Matthew]
{5:29} And if your right eye causes you to sin, root it out and cast it away from you. For it is better for you that one of your members perish, than that your whole body be cast into Hell.

Christ taught that immodesty of the eye leads to other sexual sins.
 
Christ taught the “Our Father” with an identifying address first, and then the affirmation of Abba’s being set apart as holy: “Hallowed be Thy Name.” “Name” doesn’t describe Abba’s moniker, it is His power and authority. That includes divine generative power and authority reflected in mankind through the generative union hallowed by the first sacrament, marriage. Christ’s taught us to first give a gesture of homage to honor, to cover, to set apart as holy, to tabernacle, Abba’s power and authority. This is paralleled in Shem and Japheth’s covering and setting apart as holy Noah’s nakedness, hallowing God’s generative power and authority in man. It is the veil over the bride, the tent over the bridal couple, the hallowing of life. Shem and Japheth’s hallowing is obviously literal per the detailed description of their walking backwards to spread a cloth over Father Noah.

One curses someone reflexively by cursing their child, the product of this generative power of God manifest in mankind. Shem cursed (C)Ham by cursing Canaan because for Noah to curse Ham would be to curse himself. Here is Abba’s unitive role in the crucifixion, for cursed is he who is slain upon a cross, the Father cursed in the Son, with the Romans exploiting this singularly degrading execution to maintain order among the scrupulous Hebrews. “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.”

There is exotic research suggesting that Ham went into Egypt and was known there as “The Cackler”, later made into the figure of the goose god who was executed. This man was a profane, violent, mocking, mighty fool. If this is Ham as suspected, he brought cannibalism to Egypt and was overthrown by Shem and Japheth leading people identified today as HIttites–people who are nervously distanced from close Semitic lineage by those seeking to marginalize Hebrews. These were guys with really big ropes of curly hair and so were symbolized by lions, guys who walked in and by their power and authority simply took over Egypt without a fight.

Shem is theorized to be the shepherd (shepherd-king) “Philition” identified by Herodatus as pasturing his flocks near the Great Pyramid site, his name meaning “Lover of Righteousness” paralelling Melchizedek the “Lord of Righteousnes.” Shem/Philition was the creator of the Great Pyramid made as a reliquary for the bones of the First Man, Adam (honoring The Parent); and a shrine to the salvation through the Flood. The Great Pyramid had a boat buried at its base and was, with its granite butterfly doors, a giant hydraulic ram pump built to fill a lagoon diorama of the Flood. Shem is identified by the Jews as Melchizedech, paragon of orthodoxy, the Priest-King of Salem. Shem fled Egypt when people chafed under his rulership and lapsed back into Ham’s degenerate lifestyle with evil priests scrambling the true history. Shem fled Egypt with Adam’s bones per Jewish extra-biblical texts; first burying the bones at Calvary; then translating them to the Twin Caves/Machepelah Abraham later bought to bury Sarah. Abraham was in the know.

There are three realistic Egyptian basalt statues with lion’s bodies and men’s heads with round lion ears and they may represent Shem, Japheth, and Ham, the three mighty sons of Noah and the last long-lived humans. The statue of Shem’s face is magnificent, a stern, intent, poised, physically and mentally powerful and dignified man. The statue of Japheth shows a man who is almost equally so. But the statue of the one theorized to be Ham, “The Cackler,” is just flat goofy, with big round muscular cheeks and jaws, chops that may have crunched human bones, looking as if all that genius and might went awry and all that’s left is force guided by insanity.

Shem stopped the yummy cannibalism and groovy lasciviousness. As the tough boss of the Great Pyramid, Shem was hated by workers and slain in effigy as a red-haired wild donkey god, Set, thrown off a cliff every New Years’ Day–their only day off–before going back to the beer and beef and building. Mod satanists adopted this demonized Shem as their devil god. May Shem convert 'em. Today’s red devil is similarly a corrupted form of drunk and naked animal-man, Noah. “Beware of Satan appearing as an angel of light.”

If the myth parallels reality, Shem put Ham on trial for claiming godhood/immortality, right in line with Ham’s profane mockery of Noah. Shem convicted Ham “with the strength of his tongue” i.e., his arguments. Shem proposed giving him the god test. “If you’re immortal, we’ll put you to death and you’ll be right back.” Christ passed that most ancient test. Ham didn’t resurrect from the dead and Shem cut his body up and sent it to the centers of Ham’s worship to prove to them their god was fake. Instead of the people being grateful for the truth, it triggered an uprising and Shem had to flee, going underground as Melchizedek, King of Righteousness.

Shem is likely the model for the Sphinx. Shem and Japheth’s presence in Egypt–a land promised to be restored to the Jews–accounts for Moses, as a prince of Egypt, having access to the sacred archives he recognized as orthodox, and now by divine power and authority granted to Moses, carried within the Torah. “Honor your mother and father that your days may be long upon the Earth.” Dishonoring parents is to dishonor God.

May the Eternal Creator be praised and thanked eternally by us His children; and turn the hearts of all children towards parents in loving thanks; and turn the hearts of all parents to their children in love reflecting that of God. AMEN
 
awfulthings9 said:
In Scott Hahn’s online Scripture study at www.salvationhistory.com, he makes the following comments regarding the flood narrative:

"What’s going on in the story of Ham uncovering “his father’s nakedness” (see Genesis 9:22)? In Hebrew, this phrase is a figure of speech used to describe incest (Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18. Note: In other places besides the story of Noah and Ham, The New American Bible translates this phrase as “to have intercourse with.” The Revised Standard Version in all cases keeps the more literal translation “uncover the nakedness of.” See RSV-Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18).

To uncover the nakedness of your father is to commit incest with your mother. To state it bluntly, in all its brutality - while Noah was drunk, Ham slept with his mother. We don’t know what Ham was thinking. It could be that he wanted to seize power from his dad and this heinous act was his way of insulting Noah and showing his total disrespect (see similar episodes in Genesis 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4; 2 Samuel 16:21-22).

But notice that Noah doesn’t curse Ham. He curses Canaan - the son born of this incestuous encounter. Why Canaan? It’s another hint in the text of what Ham’s crime was. As we’ll see later, Canaan will be the founding father of a nation that will be known for its abominable practice of maternal incest (see Leviticus 18:6-18; Exodus 23:23-24).

Canaan is the bad fruit born of Noah’s sin. But as Adam bore both Cain, the slayer of his brother, and Seth the righteous one, Noah too has a good seed: his firstborn son Shem, who had tried to “cover” his father’s nakedness (see Genesis 9:23).""

I don’t see a problem with the incest concept, except that Shem tries to “cover” his father’s nakedness. If to uncover someone’s nakedness is to “have intercourse with”, exactly what was Shem doing to negate that, exactly? My only theory is that Ham literally did uncover his father’s nakedness after the incest as a sign of disgrace and Shem was literally trying to save some scrap of his dignity, but if the phrase is simply a euphamism, then I’m lost on the literal meaning of Shem’s action. Any help? And yes, I know that Hahn’s interpretation is not an authority, but I’d like to explore his theory and need help past that stumbling block. Take care.
Click to expand...
 
Hello, I am new to this forum and whilst reading through this subject concening Help with Ham’s sin with Noah, may I suggest the following?

a) Do not add to the scriptures what is not clearly written to begin with. The Bible especially the Old Testament has been very graphic in explaining sexual scenes that have taken place between people, i.e. The Rape of Dinah, Sodom and Gomarrah, ect. Therefore God has no reason not to mention the Ham had raped his father Noah had that been the case, which it was not. To suggest or assume this had taken place is always open to the carnal minds idea of what could have happenend rather than what truthfully happened.
(2) If when reading this part of scripture through to the cursing and blessing of his children its obvious to see that Noah has infact, scolded Ham for his lack of respect for not covering his father’s nakedness, and then disrespecting him further by telling his brothers, in the hope that they to might join in this disgracefulness.
3) Noah was aware of what had happenend because Ham’s brothers had informed Noah that Ham had left their father naked and was proud to do so.They also informed him they covered him over. Therefore this is why Noah rewarded them with his blessing, after cursing Hams’ descendants.

This is all there is to this story, and just like Gen 6 with Angels supposedly mating with the daughters of men is another figment of man’s imagination.
 
Robert0 said:
Hello, I am new to this forum and whilst reading through this subject concening Help with Ham’s sin with Noah, may I suggest the following?

[a) Do not add to the scriptures what is not clearly written to begin with. The Bible especially the Old Testament has been very graphic in explaining sexual scenes that have taken place between people, i.e. The Rape of Dinah, Sodom and Gomarrah, ect. Therefore God has no reason not to mention the Ham had raped his father Noah had that been the case, which it was not. To suggest or assume this had taken place is always open to the carnal minds idea of what could have happenend rather than what truthfully happened.
(2) If when reading this part of scripture through to the cursing and blessing of his children its obvious to see that Noah has infact, scolded Ham for his lack of respect for not covering his father’s nakedness, and then disrespecting him further by telling his brothers, in the hope that they to might join in this disgracefulness.
3) Noah was aware of what had happenend because Ham’s brothers had informed Noah that Ham had left their father naked and was proud to do so.They also informed him they covered him over. Therefore this is why Noah rewarded them with his blessing, after cursing Hams’ descendants.

This is all there is to this story, and just like Gen 6 with Angels supposedly mating with the daughters of men is another figment of man’s imagination.
Click to expand...
You may want to read this article:
archive.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/JBL%20Gen9.pdf
[/quote]
 
I believe that anyone who wants to try to prove something that is not clearly written in english in the King James Bible, which is the true translation of the bible given to us from both the original Hebrew and Greek language, is trying to put square pegs into round holes. Here is an example; Both Wesley’s commentary and Mathew Henry suggest the spirit of prophecy came upon Noah showing him what had happened,(i.e.disrespect of Ham not covering his fathers nakedness) when the much simpler answer to this is his godly son’s merely informed him of the disrespect shown by Ham This is an example of man trying to make sense of something that does not require such. The literal word is enough to show here that ‘nothing nasty’ took place like some would interpret. What I have read which has been suggested I read in Salvation History.com does not convince me at all and I find it to be no more than speculation in all the arguments against the traditional view. I see the scriptures as meaning a simpler explanation like the curse passed onto Ham’s son Canaan by Noah to mean that he now decided disowns Ham and his offspring and they are now nothing more than servants to his faithful sons who did respected him. Its like he changed his will. We leave our kids equal shares of our wordly goods money, property ect, but here he has frozen Ham and his kids out of the will leaving them nothing. Looking on his nakedness with glee and telling others about it was serious business in those days and the curse here mentioned in the written word was made by an angry Noah not God . The consequences may have brought about the fullfiment of a curse, but it says nowhere that God cursed Canaan. I am interested only in written factual imformation not maybe’s or possiblilities…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top