tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post8894088010880670268..comments2024-03-27T02:22:55.403-07:00Comments on The Biblical Naturist: Noah’s Nakedness… What Really Happened?Matthew Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-17804081352152293602013-07-20T07:37:51.486-07:002013-07-20T07:37:51.486-07:00"The word in Hebrew is not OHEL (his tent) bu..."The word in Hebrew is not OHEL (his tent) but OHELAH (her tent)."<br /><br />Back when I studied this passage, I was unaware of this subtlety. That is very interesting.<br /><br />As I recall (I don't have my notes anymore and I'm too lazy to re-do the research), the phrases used in the Noah passage are extremely similar to the passages in Leviticus that proscribe incest. I recall the phrase "uncover the nakedness of" and the term "gazed" were used almost identically in both passages.<br /><br />I came to the conclusion that Noah got drunk and was masturbating (uncovered his own nakedness). But if the word OHELAH has a feminine implication then it could very well be that he was having sex with his wife (she is his "nakedness" which Leviticus talks about when sons should not have sex with their father's wife).<br />Jasenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17612368694261383142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-70353364768476675142011-10-29T13:26:23.270-07:002011-10-29T13:26:23.270-07:00Here's a thought:
The Bible says that God b...Here's a thought: <br /><br />The Bible says that God blessed Noah,<br /><br />and all of his sons. Therefore,Ham<br /><br />was already blessed, so he could not<br /><br />be cursed. And let us remember, only<br /><br />one of Ham's sons was cursed, not <br /><br />all of them. Thus, the fable that<br /><br />Ham and all his descendants are <br /><br />cursed is totally false and <br /><br />taken out of context. Check out<br /><br />Genesis very carefully. You guys<br /><br />are making some very good points, <br /><br />though. This gives people a chance<br /><br />to clarify. But again, Ham wasn't<br /><br />cursed, because he was blessed<br /><br />already. Only Canaan was cursed<br /><br />out of all of Ham's sons. Cush, <br /><br />Put, and Mitzraim, Ham's other<br /><br />sons were not cursed in this <br /><br />event. And as far as the nakedness<br /><br />factor, it simply says that<br /><br />Ham walked in and saw his father's<br /><br />nakedness. Instead of covering <br /><br />him up and not making fun (which<br /><br />is disrespectful to a parent), he<br /><br />chose to talk about it to his<br /><br />brothers. A cultural thing, I'm <br /><br />almost certain. In the Middle<br /><br />East, seeing a parent's nakedness<br /><br />and making fun is a very serious<br /><br />matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-20824278861634241062011-05-26T17:26:24.986-07:002011-05-26T17:26:24.986-07:00I have thought about it. I was intrigued the very ...I have thought about it. I was intrigued the very first time I heard it, but upon reflection, I rejected that notion as not being defensible from the Scriptures. The ONLY point in its favor is that it would give us a plausible explanation of why Canaan was cursed instead of Ham. <br /> <br />But "plausible explanation" is no proof of anything at all. There can be dozens of plausible reasons which could ALL be wrong and the right reason could be one completely and utterly hidden from us thousands of years and hundreds of cultures removed from the event.<br /> <br />But just as plausible (or more so...) is the idea that Noah did not want to curse Ham and thereby curse all four of his sons (see Gen. 10:6) and so he only cursed 1/4 of Ham, or one of his sons. And of course, since birth order really mattered in that culture, it was #4 (the youngest son was least important) on whom the curse fell.<br /> <br />And if you were implying that Ham did not have his own wife, we know that is absolutely false. Not only did Ham have three other sons before Canaan, Gen. 7:7 tells us that Noah's sons entered the ark with their wives. 1 Peter 3:20 tells us that there were eight people aboard. That makes one woman for each man. <br /> <br />And even though only the sons of Noah's sons are recorded in the Bible, they had to have had daughters, too, else there would have been no way to repopulate the planet.<br /> <br />Noah himself lived 350 years after the flood (Gen. 9:28), most likely all his sons did the same. There would have been plenty of time to have kids after the flood.Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-49413184845630048692011-05-25T23:15:03.125-07:002011-05-25T23:15:03.125-07:00if what you say is true, then where did Canaan com...if what you say is true, then where did Canaan come from?<br /><br />most likely from the union of Ham and Noah's wife, which is why Noah would curse him and drive him away.<br /><br />something to think about!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-61196826258285286902011-05-17T12:48:45.793-07:002011-05-17T12:48:45.793-07:00I've heard before what you've mentioned he...I've heard before what you've mentioned here about the tent. I've also heard the idea taken so far as to conclude that the reason Canaan was cursed was bacause he was the actual offspring conceived by the incestuous union between Ham and Noah's wife.<br /> <br />However, I find that line of reasoning and interpretation very unlikely to be true. It simply stretches the limits of exegesis too thin. Here's why I say that.<br /> <br />* Yes, it's very likely that Noah was naked in his wife's tent. Nothing wrong with that.<br /> <br />* If you have read my post and article about the Hebrew word, "ervah," you'll see that It consistently is used to also infer sexual activity. From this we can surmise that Noah was attempting to be sexually active, perhaps with his wife, or perhaps alone.<br /> <br />* The language of Lev. 18 uses a very consistent phrase, "uncover the nakedness (ervah) of..." to define and prohibit incest. That phrase is *not* here in Gen. 9 and it is a stretch or worse (adding to God's Word!) to read it into the passage. We certainly cannot presume incest every other time we find the word "nakedness" (ervah) in the Bible.<br /> <br />* The text says that Ham "saw" (not uncovered) his father's nakedness, then told his brothers *outside.* It seems clear that Ham's actions didn't have anything to do with some sort of participation in what was going on inside the tent.<br /> <br />* Since whatever Ham "saw" and likely ridiculed to his brothers evidently had to do with their father's dignity, the other brothers walked in backwards to protect their father from the indignity that Ham freely exploited. Only a matter of a strictly *visible* activity would have been rectified by the actions taken by Ham's brothers. If Ham had been "hitting on" his mom/step-mom, then walking in backwards with a covering would not have had any corrective impact at all. More appropriate would have been to go grab Ham, rip him away from Mom and take him outside for lesson he wouldn't soon forget...<br /> <br />Reading incest into this account simply strains the limits of credible exegesis.<br /> <br />My personal opinion about what actually happened is this:<br /> <br />Noah was drunk. He was trying to make love to his wife, but, being drunk, it wasn't working. Ham sees it and thinks it's funny, so he calls his brothers to come watch their father's blundering attempts at sex while drunk. <br /> <br />The brothers spurn Ham's humor and instead, they protect the honor of their father by refusing to even look at their father in his embarrassing condition. Instead, they take a blanket in and cover Mom and Dad up so that Ham would no longer be able to see and ridicule him.<br /> <br />Noah was too drunk to do anything at the moment it happened, but he wasn't so drunk he didn't remember what happened. And that's when he prounounced the curse on Canaan.<br /> <br />Matt<br /><br />P.S. About the CNC... Check the CNC website, it's liked here at the blog under "Worthwhile Links."Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-78117624348845412222011-05-17T10:28:47.217-07:002011-05-17T10:28:47.217-07:00Examine the Hebrew, the translation of "his t...Examine the Hebrew, the translation of "his tent" is incorrect. The word in Hebrew is not OHEL (his tent) but OHELAH (her tent).<br /><br />Later on in Scripture we find the prohibition of "you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife, for that is your father's nakedness". (Referring to sexual immorality with your father's wife.) So in that context, it was not looking upon the nakedness of Noah that was in question. Noah had gone into his wife's tent. There is therefore the suggestion that his son had tried to do something immoral with Noah's wife. (Not necessarily the original "Mrs Noah" by that time.)<br /><br />Is there a schedule for CNC Texas yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com