Noah’s Nakedness and Canaan’s Curse (Genesis

[@ChristianCentury2000]

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!

[@zin153]

This is the first time for me to hear the 4th interpretation and now those scriputes suddenly make sense to me. Thank you

[@zionsong4470]

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.

[@1clemex]

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? ........

[@racinehorsinaround3630]

@@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.

[@charlhenpierre1]

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?

[@charlhenpierre1]

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.

[@1clemex]

@@racinehorsinaround3630 yes you got it, everything is in the same text

[@JDinkel]

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.

[@markfiskeauxsr.4416]

Excellent Textual interpretation. As a Bible teacher, I’ve taught this 4th interpretation for 32 years

[@BrendaJones492]

It doesn’t explain Canaan already being born and being cursed by name if the incident just occurred that day.

[@sigalsmadar4547]

@@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.

[@BrendaJones492]

@@sigalsmadar4547 Thank you. That makes sense!

[@torahexplorer]

Whoa

[@CaptCrunchTime]

@@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.

[@yahsgirl5264]

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.

[@kerncountyrd5263]

The extra detail he adds not only validates my theory, but it makes it crystal clear now.

[@iam2908]

This explanation doesn’t work either. Noah cursed Canaan as soon as he woke up. That means Canaan was already born.

[@kennywill3849]

​​@@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.

[@kirkwallace1917]

Thanks for the transparancy regarding the subject

[@lindalucas4242]

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.

[@benjaminthomas2626]

Yes yes and yes, thank you for going to such detailed explanations and research! Keep it up to glorify Yah!

[@jonathanmcpherson102]

Thank you. This explanation is biblically sound and very logical. It rings more true that any other explanation I've ever heard. Well done!

[@PathToGreat]

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?

[@legendarytruth_t8265]

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.

[@Dust337]

@@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.

[@sleepmagnolia]

Thank you for taking the time to write all this!!! The arguments I was looking for.

[@FelonyVideos]

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.

[@mukesh_media]

“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.

[@jimiyakubu9905]

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.

[@strineys.957]

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.

[@michaelmcintosh8599]

This is excellent work brother

[@largoranch1995]

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

[@chuckbodnar5756]

Wow!! This is an exciting interpretation of the scripture, great job and good explanation.

[@kylearmour8750]

Hams actions showed his character and thus justified his father's disappointment

[@4realstuph]

Excellent. Very helpful in my understanding of this text.

[@spitflamez]

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.

[@k-mark9187]

The feminine suffix for tent was interesting

[@thetruthsideswiththeoppressed]

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.

[@mukesh_media]

Thank you for the good explaination

[@bradleymcdonald6273]

And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”

[@CustomWeldingandFab]

Finally someone interprets this correctly

[@dave438-jw3]

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.

[@carolindalancaster7334]

Excellent insights you have shared! The last explanation seems to be apt and addresses the scriptures in the best light..Todah rabah!

[@jimmyrisley4843]

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.

[@kerncountyrd5263]

David, Thank you for this! Your study validates something that I've suspected for years.

[@bayareabeardco.3871]

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.

[@mrdr1ggy]

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.

[@michaelszczys8316]

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.

[@stevefitzgerald4008]

Excellent explanations

[@tom_olofsson]

Thank you for helping clarify this confusing passage.

[@J3susChrist1sLord]

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!

[@rudybriskar5267]

Leviticus 18:7-8 KJV The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. [8] The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. 6:05

[@kronos01ful]

Wao! This blew my mind ! Im so thankful and bless for what i heard !

[@jmarylastone]

at 5:59 -- Ezekiel -- 22:18 , 29 -- ?? these do not "talk" about nakedness - am I missing something or are those the wrong verses

[@holyredheifer9193]

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

[@linda.brotherton1689]

Wow why cant we just accept word 4 word what it says.

[@sigalsmadar4547]

I think this explanation does more than any other! What are you missing?

[@ThePropriate]

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.

[@ChristSeed777]

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.

[@Dust337]

Yes yes speak on it Linda 👏 🙌 Humans love to complicate simple things.

[@davedobyn266]

Mums the word. GOD bless🙏❤️

[@brianb6603]

Excellent as usual!!!

[@ash-shakirwhitaker7008]

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...).

[@sethdonahue3441]

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?

[@gabrielle-d1b]

Very easy, we see it all around us how easy it is to sin.

[@peace-and-quiet]

Very easy if he was drunk (wasted).

[@richardmason7840]

Thanks man . Keep up the good news work. Shalom!

[@spitflamez]

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!

[@harveywabbit9541]

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.)

[@pierreferguson1300]

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.”

[@riesenblut7]

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..

[@carolbowen1693]

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!

[@AzetheReal]

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.

[@steveunger8249]

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.

[@mamabear71234]

This certainly seems very logical and fits the biblical narrative! Great presentation!

[@pabloashan-deleon3088]

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* ❓🤔💭

[@onewhomtarries333]

Thank you So Much

[@buddhabless4880]

Thx Dis opened up my mind beautifully now it’s time 2 dive n2 da rabbit hole 🫡💯

[@gray3641]

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.

[@chriswilford4657]

Ham slept with Noah's wife and begot canan who takes hams lineage and is called Noah's son and cursed for his father's sin even possibly the slavery in Egypt part of restitution 😊

[@pauldaystar]

Please Fast Forward 10: minutes to get to the main Answer

[@sleepmagnolia]

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??

[@ministeronaldstimphil5448]

Great question. The truth is that the maternal incest theory makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! If it does, it means that Ham's brothers Shem and Japheth were as immoral as their younger brother. Personally, if my youngest brother came back from raping my mother and told me about it, I would be so upset that I would not wait around for my father to get sober to deal with the matter myself first. Did Shem and Japheth think that by covering their father, this would soothe their mother's pain of having been violated by her own son? How did they show compassion and filial love toward their own mother? Did she matter at all? This theory, full of salacious imagery, complicates the theological lesson being taught, and in the end, it just conveys to us that Noah's family was totally dysfunctional and wicked, including the patriarch himself. Is this what God wanted to inform us from this scripture? I seriously doubt it.

[@BereanBubba]

Another understanding of the Leviticus 20:17 verse is uncovering your father’s nakedness means actually committing incest with your mother, the father’s wife. Ham had sex with his mother while Noah was out cold in a drunken state. This he uncovered his father’s nakedness by uncovering his mother. His mother conceived Canaan from this act of incest, which was most likely rape. Therefore Canaan was now the product of Ham’s sin toward his father. This is why Noah cursed Ham and Canaan. Considering who the Canaanite’s come from ancestrally speaking, they too did the same sinful acts of incest just as their father Ham did.

[@edwoo7023]

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!

[@forestwoods5499]

Nimrod also married his mother Semiramis, Cush’s wife. Semiramis was both the mom and grandmother to Tammuz.

[@gravityfallscanada]

119 Ministers doesn't accept the Jasher's canonocity. No point in bringing that up...

[@JasonAdank]

@@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.

[@JasonAdank]

@@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.

[@gravityfallscanada]

@@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.

[@Dust337]

That was invented by Alexander hislop its not true. Every one has it out for Hams Decendants

[@opalsirius8484]

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

[@decthadog]

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

[@strineys.957]

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...

[@positiveendtimes]

Too basic

[@decthadog]

@@strineys.957 yeah, that's something to think about

[@lynetteprinsloo844]

Was Cannan born at that time then? Or was he the son of Ham and Noah's wife?

[@kylearmour8750]

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?

[@nazsolomon8164]

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

[@lynetteprinsloo844]

I was thinking the exact same. As understand Cannan was then the son of Noah's wife and Ham?

[@mrdr1ggy]

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.

[@tomchishko62]

Scripture interprets Scripture. Fine job with the Holy Spirit

[@ministeronaldstimphil5448]

Wrong. That was scripture cleverly put together to make a point. The maternal incest theory makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! If it is true, it means that Ham's brothers Shem and Japheth were as immoral as their younger brother. Personally, if my youngest brother came back from raping my mother and told me about it, I would be so upset that I would not wait around for my father to get sober to deal with the matter myself first. Did Shem and Japheth think that by covering their father, this would soothe their mother's pain of having been violated by her own son? How did they show compassion and filial love toward their own mother? Did she matter at all? This theory, full of salacious imagery, complicates the theological lesson being taught, and in the end, it just conveys to us that Noah's family was totally dysfunctional and wicked, including the patriarch himself. Is this what God wanted to inform us from this scripture? I seriously doubt it.

[@XenaIxcoy]

Yup cleared things up perfectly the world wants to pervert the word of God. Shalom!

[@dlsj3602]

Please read this next part prayerfully and with an open mind and heart to the Truth. Let's begin. canaan was the result of incest between ham, and his mother, Noah's second wife. "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 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. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Genesis 9:21‭-‬25 KJV "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." Leviticus 18:8 KJV "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:11 KJV "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV "Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen." Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV ham was a half brother to Shem and Japheth. Notice how he's not mentioned in 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." Genesis 10:21 KJV And, his wife on the ark... "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." 1 Peter 3:20 KJV Was Noah's second wife, who was a kenite, mother of canaan. That's how the kenites (serpent's seed) survived the flood! "And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab." 1 Chronicles 2:55 KJV It all makes perfect sense. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, eight souls, were saved. ham's wife was actually his own mother, Noah's second wife, mother of ham, and canaan. So, canaan was a kenite! Writings of Abraham: CHAPTER 11 1. "AND when Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, he begat a son and he called his name Japheth. 2. Forty­two years later he begat another son of her who was the mother of Japheth, and he called his name Shem. 3. Eight years later Noah begat a son of his wife Naamah, who was of the seed of Cain, and he called his name Ham, for he said, Through him will the curse be preserved in the land." Extra-canonical texts seem to support this Truth. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah." Genesis 7:2‭, ‬8‭-‬9 KJV ham and his mother were the 2 unclean (kenites), among the humans, on the ark. Here's an interesting insight... "Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldeans, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:" Nehemiah 9:7‭-‬8 KJV These names above, here, and the names below, are mostly the same... "And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad." Genesis 10:6, 15‭-‬18 KJV canaan was of the serpents seed. Father literally promised Abraham the land that the serpent's seed was inhabiting... "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Genesis 9:24‭-‬27 KJV

[@dreslion]

Isn't there a 4th possibility? That "seeing a father's nakedness" can refer to taking advantage of the man's wife?

[@TimothyChapman]

That is what they said in the video.

[@TimothyChapman]

@Sven3xs That list is of the most common arguments. Watch the rest of it and you'll see the 4th possibility mentioned and advocated.

[@michaelszczys8316]

How about a 5th possible scenario in which Noah retains his righteousness, nobody has sex with their mother or grandmother or fathers wife, nobody gets castrated. First off I believe that this whole drunken encounter scene is a demonstration of how Ham the son of Noah was a rebellious disobedient son and that the ' thing ' that he did to Noah was to blatantly disobey his strict orders in choosing a wife from among the corrupted peoples of their time before the flood. All three sons were to find women with the least amount of Nephilim DNA genetic contamination since ALL had some and they were the only family left with totally pure genes. Ham likely found a highly contaminated girl on purpose just to go against his father. The actions of Ham at the drunken escapade incident reminded Noah of how Ham had disobeyed him and actually helped to bring along the very thing they were trying to leave behind. Second, it is of my knowledge that before the flood the climate and conditions of the atmosphere were much different than today to the point where fermentation of foods did not occur at all or that it was greatly reduced. Noah may have liked to drink fruit juices and particularly grape juice all of his previous 500 years before the flood and if he was a wealthy man he may have always obtained it from someone else. After the flood, however, there was no one else to obtain it from any more so if he wanted his fruit drinks he would have to grow it and make it himself. The Bible says ' Noah BECAME an husbandman ' or farmer because he was not one before the flood. He set up a vineyard for grapes as trees were all gone and having to start over. He harvested the grapes and made juice ( wine ) that was good, however unlike before the flood when he drank wine that had been sitting in containers for a length of time it had become fermented which may have been something he never encountered before and when he drank of the ' funny tasting grape juice ' it made him intoxicated which was probably the first time in his life he ever encountered and never did again. I get tired of hearing people taking the last truly righteous man on the earth who carried out the extreme mission of building the ark boat to carry God's animals and themselves through the deluge of water, and reducing him to a worthless bum drunk whose only intent on planting a vineyard was to get wasted. 3rd when Ham saw the nakedness of his father, I believe he just SAW his father naked and acting silly as it was probably the only time he ( or anyone else for that matter ) had been so intoxicated and wasn't sure what he was doing. Taking advantage of his father's sudden condition and disrespecting him horribly his brothers covered their father up to stop Ham from harassing him. When Noah woke up he was mad at Ham for being that way with him and spewed out a reminder of what he had done ( probably quite a few years back ) and how as a result one of his sons ( Canaan ) was an obvious carrier of the dread Nephilim DNA gene and that made him cursed ( Canaan ). Canaan most likely was showing signs of carrying the gene such as having six fingers and toes. Canaan went on to become the father of the evil giant tribes that occupied the Promised Land. Many people have trouble with the Nephilim coming through the flood in any form as this would mean that God had failed with the flood. Not necessarily so as the flood wiped out a whole contaminated planet down to the last generation of pure blood people but still kept a remnant for His own reasons, such as keeping the enemy in the game, and for occupying the promised land and keeping it clear of ' normal ' people, plus the testing and judgement of His ' chosen ' people.

[@rmsaf870]

thank you, brothers

[@marquezmarquez5671]

Every time I have read this scripture I have always found it to have a simple meaning. I think people have made it more than it is. I believe Noah being drunk showed there to be sin within their father and Ham wanted to expose this to his brothers. By showing his father Noah could be exposed without waking up, it proves his father’s drunkenness. This is actually an obvious and more intense sin on Ham’s part because he is dishonoring his father in the eyes of his brothers by exposing his father’s sin to them.

[@jamesmunn8144]

I recall hearing a person say something very profound to me, "the Bible is like an ocean, it is shallow enough for even the simple to enjoy it near the shoreline, but deep enough that even Theologians cant touch the bottom". While there are plenty of scriptures that can be understood at face value, there are others that have much much more meaning than just face value. Sometimes spotting them can be a challenge. Shalom.

[@carolbowen1693]

@@jamesmunn8144 the milk and then the meat-profoundly simple and simply profound!

[@jamesdaniels8007]

That is an Islamic view. Traditional Islam is an honor/shame culture. A person can sin as much as they want, but if they don't get caught there is no shame on the person or the family. This view does not make sense since the God of the bible, the God of Noah, looks at the heart and will judge accordingly. God has always used men in the bible to expose the sin of another (Samuel and Saul, and Nathan and David are just two examples). It does not make sense that Ham exposing his father's sin would be shameful, especially since Moses wrote down the account that we have and was the one whom, through God, gave God's law to the Israelites.

[@thepsalmproject1]

If we were to stick to the simplest theory, why would Noah curse Canaan? How's Canaan even entering this picture here and how did Noah even know that Ham is going to produce offspring?

[@TazHall]

Still doesn't explain why Canaan was cursed or why his descendants were so sexually perverse. Or why Noah didn't seem to have any more children even after God's blessing to be fruitful and multiply. What happened to his wife?

[@strineys.957]

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’?

[@Dayday888.]

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?

[@strineys.957]

@@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”.

[@Dayday888.]

@@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.

[@carolbowen1693]

@@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!

[@strineys.957]

@@carolbowen1693 : Thank you 😊.

[@vvan222]

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.

[@jamesmunn8144]

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.

[@tombaker2523]

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.

[@stevejeter330]

Good word. Well.done

[@debbiestevens5490]

WOW! I loved this

[@BillyRoberts]

I did too, Debbie.

[@eliadsavel8015]

at minute 1:34 DO YOU understand that today the jews stay on a cursed land?

[@marianperron9219]

If Ham is the father of Canaan through his own mother, or Noah’s wife who was not his own mother, does that mean Noah was drunk for nine months before he “woke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him?” If not, how would he have known to call a pre-born child a son and name him Canaan? Is it possible Ham made Noah or encouraged Noah to drink to take advantage of a step- mother? See Hab 2:15

[@JasonAdank]

Uhm... If Noahs wife was raped by her son/stepson (whichever), its likely that she would have told Noah right away. Also remember that Ham boasted about what he had done to both Shem and Japeth - they easily could have told Noah as soon as he woke up in their disgust to what Ham had done.

[@xolang]

İ turned on the automatically generated subtitles and the language option is İndonesian instead of English.. 🤔

[@silkiechickens]

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

[@lunagregoria8827]

Genesis is such a curious read because of all the human drama. Nonetheless, all of the Bible stories are about God’s faithfulness despite his people’s decisions against him. His people may be entertaining in their sin, but the goal is to draw nearer to God. Stay prayerful everyone.❤

[@mrdr1ggy]

To the 4th option: How did Noah know Ham's childs name if he wasn't even born yet? How did Noah know Canaan came from Ham and Noahs wife..aka Hams mother if Canaan wasn't even born yet. I believe Canaan was the 4th son of Ham, from Ham's wife - maybe even a young boy at the time of Ham seeing Noah naked, stealing Adams garments, and telling his two brothers outside about it. What Happened in Noah's wife's tent? Did Ham rape his own mother? did he laugh at Noah, steal the garments of Noah/ Adam and told his brothers just the 1st part? Ham later kept the garment hidden and then gave the garment to Kush, who gave it to Nimrod who built Shinar, Babel, Tower.

[@kennywill3849]

You should note 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.

[@beeinthebodytorahclass2002]

Shabbat shalom. Excellent teaching, God bless you!

[@mellbell9875]

Great explanation!

[@TyTy-ss2on]

The reason why Cain wasn't cursed is because GOD had already blessed the sons of Noah. Who GOD bless, no man can curse. Ham son was cursed because Ham didn't cover his father like his brothers did. PERIOD! ALL THIS SAME SEX INCEST THING MAN/FLESH

[@dashulamite]

Shepherd's Chapel (Pastor Arnold Murray) has been teaching the 4th interpretation forever.

[@JasonAdank]

Yep this is correct and spot on. Church's need to stop teaching the ridiculous explanations of this event and let the Bible interpret itself. Leviticus spells it out, and it explains everything that followed with how the decedents of Canaan behaved.

[@greymatter909]

What is the Hebrew literal translation say?

[@betwixtthewaters3700]

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.

[@119Ministries]

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

[@ministeronaldstimphil5448]

Good for you to doubt. The maternal incest theory makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! If it does, it means that Ham's brothers Shem and Japheth were as immoral as their younger brother. Personally, if my youngest brother came back from raping my mother and told me about it, I would be so upset that I would not wait around for my father to get sober to deal with the matter myself first. Did Shem and Japheth think that by covering their father, this would soothe their mother's pain of having been violated by her own son? How did they show compassion and filial love toward their own mother? Did she matter at all? This theory, full of salacious imagery, complicates the theological lesson being taught, and in the end, it just conveys to us that Noah's family was totally dysfunctional and wicked, including the patriarch himself. Is this what God wanted to inform us from this scripture? I seriously doubt it.

[@nicobones9608]

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.

[@sigalsmadar4547]

The curse of Canaan and his people seems a little extreme for that instance.... IMHO

[@abuskeleke3378]

Shalom brother, as always you know how to bring it home with eloquence, all glory to Yahawah, shalom

[@aellingham2742]

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.

[@everythingchrisprime1189]

I was doing an essay about the Biblical Truth vs Greek religion and I found this story

[@dwightwhite7838]

Most in the Church either haven't heard of this or find it too repugnant to entertain the possibility that Ham had sex with his mother and produced the child Canaan by her. I came across this interpretation a few years ago and it completely made sense to me as to why Noah cursed his grandson directly rather than Ham who committed the sin. All other interpretations in my opinion cannot account for Noah cursing his grandson; except for the one being presented here.

[@JasonAdank]

Also, we have to understand that Noah's pronouncing a curse may have been more of a prophetic vision of what was to come from the future generations of that linaege, as opposed to him shutting down Canaan. It wasnt God pronouncing the curse.

[@tarquinmidwinter2056]

It doesn't matter; it's just a story.

[@bmjjjja]

Ham "rawaw" (behold, saw, uncovered) the nakedness of his father. Gen 9:22. It is a way of describing sexual intercourse. "The nakedness of thy father or the nakedness of they mother, thou shalt not uncover; she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness" Lev 18:7. Notice if this is the mother of Ham, it would be "her nakedness" he uncovered. But, "the nakedness of thy father's wife, shalt thou not uncover, it is thy father's nakedness" Lev 18:8. So what had Ham done? He uncovered his father's nakedness not his mother's nakedness.. This is speaking about his father's wife and this female is not Ham's mother. Mrs Noah on the ark is not the mother of the boys. This explains how the seed of nephilim (King Og, Goliath, Rephaim, etc) survived the flood and it explains that Canaan is the product of this forbidden union. Therefore, Canaan, who was nephilim, was cursed due to no act on his part, just as all nephilim were cursed.

[@LiviaWA]

The scripture on Gen 9:24 says “…and knew what his younger son had done to into him” not what Ham did to him like you stated in your statement. Basing your comments on what Ham did to Noah is not accurate!! Youngest son is Cannan.

[@tonyshumway7652]

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Proverbs 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil. 2 Thessalonians 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Daniel 3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. Matthew 25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

[@LandOfJuncoville]

Wow! What an excellent explanation! Very clearly articulated. It finally makes sense. Thank you, David. You are a fantastic teacher!

[@mrbetyoudidntknow]

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

[@retireddec04]

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!

[@ThisIsApollo23]

so this is my theory: Feel free to engage if yo agree or disagree Noah, after the the flood, had fulfilled his mission from God. He then became a "normal guy", and grew a vineyard. I believe he did get drunk, but when when we say "nakedness" i believe it refers to Noah being drunk and maybe saying blasphemous things in a drunken tirade, to which Ham came upon and saw/heard this from his father, who he views as this great holy man, now reduced in his eyes as a drunkard. He told his brothers, but his brothers being older, choose not to see their father in this light and "snitch" on Ham. It doesn't say that God cursed Canaan, it says Noah did,. It humanizes Noah in showing his flaws (being drunk, and then being petty when he is discovered). Maybe, Maybe. Its fun to ponder these thoughts.

[@kelseykciuk7809]

That 4th interpretation felt like truth.....