Curse of Ham / Canaan

[Zzyzx]

.
Curse of Ham / Canaan

A drunken ‘perfect man who walks with God’ curses his grandson (Canaan) because his son (Ham) saw him naked.

Genesis 9:

20 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.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

According to the tale Noah gets drunk, lies about naked, and is seen naked by a son (oh horror of it all) and then curses a grandson to be a servant.

Note: This tale was used for many centuries as justification of slavery and/or subjugation of black people.

An interesting Wikipedia article with many references
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

If anyone were ‘cursed’, shouldn’t it be the drunken Noah? What did Canaan have to do with the matter?

Wait a minute: A drunken Noah seems less than ‘perfect’ as he was described in Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

[SallyF]

When illustrated clearly and examined as written … and taken literally … this tale of prophecy and drunkenness and cursing makes little sense, and is most unreasonable.

Yet good Christians did use it for centuries as justification for enslaving African peoples.

Today - like many, many things that were the bulwarks of traditional Christianity - it is chosen to be "understood" differently.

For many who still call themselves "Christian", what was once the "Word of God" is no longer the "Word of God".

Given that stance, it is perfectly reasonable for all who are interested to look for what else it all may be.

The absurdity of "scripture" - and the outrageous claims of apologists - and the omissions - and the avoidance - and the obfuscation and deflection - encourage this New Atheist to examine what he once believed as a child.

[Zzyzx]

.

WHY attempt to justify a drunk who puts a curse on an innocent person?

Who are you refering to as "an innocent person" and why?

Words in red were omitted from my statement when quoted.

The innocent person in the tale was Canaan, the son of Ham and grandson of Noah.

WHAT, exactly, did Canaan do to warrant being cursed to be a servant?

Why omit a drunk? The tale clearly specifies that Noah was drunk, why hide it? He was a ‘perfect’ drunk, who ‘walks with God’ (perhaps after he sobers up).

Irrational 'cursing'

What do you seem as "irrational" about Noah's curse?

A drunk man learns that his son has seen him naked so he places a curse on the son’s son to make him a servant.

Nothing irrational about that, is there? Any rational person would do the same. Right?

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY DID NOAH CURSE CANAAN?

• The bible says "because he "saw his father’s* nakednessâ€� (Genesis 9:22). Evidently this was not refering to simply seeing his grandfather* without clothes on since at no time does the bible indicated that nakedness is of itself a sin. The expression may indicate some abuse or perversion took place. For example, in most instances incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of ‘laying bare’ or ‘seeing the nakedness’ of another person (compare Leviticus 18:7-20)
  
  The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, suggests that the brief narrative {quote} “refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated.� The Soncino Chumash also points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon [Noah],�
  
  The website https://www.gotquestions.org/uncover-nakedness.html suggests the perpetrator may have .. " engaged in some kind of sexual activity or dishonor of Noah’s private parts" and points out that ...
  

  .... the phrase uncover nakedness almost always refers to sexual sin. In most newer versions of the Bible, the phrase uncover nakedness is usually reworded as “have sexual relations with� (e.g., Leviticus 18:6, 17, 19). So, it is possible that Canaan had committed or attempted to commit some abuse on the unconscious Noah

  * The Account specifically refers to Caanan, not Ham, as being cursed. The Hebrew word translated “son� in verse 24 may mean “grandson,� so “The reference is evidently to Canaan.� The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Edited by J. H. Hertz, London, 1972, p. 34)

CONCLUSION There is more than enough Biblical evidence to conclude that the expression that Canaan "saw [Noah's] nakedness" refers to his committing some kind of sexual perversion for which he was justifiably held to account.



RELATED POSTS

QUESTION Were people with black skin cursed?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 317#857317

Did God condone the slave trade?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 348#931348

How could Noah be described as "perfect" if he got drunk on at least one occasion?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 937#974937

Should we hold the prophets in contempt
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 812#962812

Was Job perfect?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 100#753100

Was the Original edenic sin that of having sexual intercourse?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 188#954188

Was the Mosaic law prohibiting the grabbing of a man's genitals evil?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 599#822599

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

CONCLUSION There is more than enough Biblical evidence to conclude that the expression that Canaan's "saw [Noah's] his father’s nakedness" refers to his committing some kind of sexual perversion for which he was justifiably held to account.

SUGGESTION: For those who see metaphor in these impossible and improbable tales - think of "naked" as referring to a lack of religious knowledge, or very poor theology.

Then all the magic and prophecy and abominable acts just fade away into the world of fantasy …

And we can see that these are political stories from a much later time.

The "Noah" culture had its poor theology exposed by the "Ham" culture and this explained to the "Canaan" culture why they had been subjugated by the "Shem" culture, who were then subjugated by the "Japheth" culture.

It's a simple, down-to-earth hypothesis concerning genuine historio-political events.

Consider too the "nakedness" of the mythological mud-man and his rib-woman.

I suggest that the pople who wrote this propaganda did NOT take it literally - thy knew what they were referring to, and so did many of their contemporaries.

But this propaganda is written so the everyday people can take it as simple literal history as well.

I suggest that the writers were intentionally writing for different levels of comprehension.

I suggest that the writers were intentionally writing so the propaganda could be taken to mean different things to different people.

For example: who is the legitimate heir to the Promised Land …?

One can read in the "scripture" that Herod the Great was the legitimate heir.

One can read in the "scripture" that the Davids were NOT the legitimate heirs - and therefore Jesus did not have a valid claim to the title. (But one has to put the whole evidence-free "Son of God" business out of the way first.)

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


This bizarre tale is a complete let down. God had just spent over a hundred years enacting his plan to eliminate human wickedness by flooding the whole earth. He killed countless humans and animals to resolve his botched creation effort.

You'd think we'd now enter into a phase of great happiness and joy celebrating God's great work in correcting his previous error. Instead, we find this story of God's main man getting drunk and naked and cursing one of his son's descendants.

The mud had barely dried up, and we're right back to the way things were before God's miraculous solution.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.

The mud had barely dried up, and we're right back to the way things were before God's miraculous solution.

Yes, debauchery returned big time. Consider the incest that HAD to occur if only one family survived (according to the tale).

The farthest separated that next generation could choose as reproductive partner was a cousin or uncle / aunt.

If the tale was true it might explain why humans are so often defective -- INBREEDING

[Tcg]

.

The mud had barely dried up, and we're right back to the way things were before God's miraculous solution.

Yes, debauchery returned big time. Consider the incest that HAD to occur if only one family survived (according to the tale).

That's a very good point. Odd isn't it, given that many who accept the flood as a literal event state that sexual debauchery was the key reason God used the Genesis Flood to destroy mankind.

There was some sexual debauchery before the flood, but after, it was required for the continuation of the human race. One would think a being who bears the title "God" could think of a better plan.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Extending the castration motif mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Ignác Goldziher argued that the story is a solar myth. Noah, the sun, is emasculated by Ham, the night. Goldziher saw solar myths everywhere. But then again, maybe he was right.

S. R. Driver's commentary on Genesis says of the episode:

From the order in both J (v. 18) and P (v. 32, vi. 10, vii. 13, x. 1), it would naturally be inferred that Japheth was the youngest son of Noah. The writer of vv. 20-27 must have followed a different tradition—either one which gave Noah's sons in the order Shem, Japheth, and Ham, or one which made them to be Shem, Japheth, and Canaan.

The implication is that the words "Ham, father of" were added to verse 22 to harmonize the two traditions.

[ttruscott]

A drunken ‘perfect man who walks with God’ curses his grandson (Canaan) because his son (Ham) saw him naked.

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Perfect does not mean sinless.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"Genesis 6:9 Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.—“Just� is, literally, righteous, one whose actions were sufficiently upright to exempt him from the punishment inflicted upon the rest of mankind. “Perfect� means sound, healthy, and conveys no idea of sinlessness. It answers to the Latin integer, whence our word integrity, and not to perfectus."

Righteous is a word that is used of sinners who are within the body of the elect which suggests that it sometimes has no moral value but is a status word denoting their relationship with GOD as HIS elect, not their moral attainment.

Perfect is the same perfect that a sacrificial animal had to be to be offered,ie, only the best was acceptable, not the dregs of the herd. Sound in body, that is, with all its parts and healthy, not diseased nor unfit for consumption...no idea of sinlessness at all.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges suggests:
"The word “perfect� (LXX τέλειος, Lat. perfectus) means “without flaw.� As a ritual term used of an animal for sacrifice, “perfect� would mean “free from blemish.� Transferred to morals, it denotes “integrity...�

As for the suggestion that Canaan was cursed for seeing Noah naked, that is a guess for it is not written what exactly Canaan did to warrant the curse. Therefore we have a choice; to judge Noah in the worst light or to accept that there is more to the story we have not been yet told about: Gen 9:24 When Noah awoke from his drunkenness and learned what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan! It should also be noticed that he was probably not still drunk when he pronounced the curse since he had slept it off. Of course, this also gives us a choice as to how hard we want to be with him.

[Zzyzx]

.

A drunken ‘perfect man who walks with God’ curses his grandson (Canaan) because his son (Ham) saw him naked.

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Perfect does not mean sinless.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"Genesis 6:9 Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.—“Just� is, literally, righteous, one whose actions were sufficiently upright to exempt him from the punishment inflicted upon the rest of mankind. “Perfect� means sound, healthy, and conveys no idea of sinlessness. It answers to the Latin integer, whence our word integrity, and not to perfectus."

Okay, let’s play word games.

If ‘perfect means sound, healthy, and conveys no idea of sinlessness, WHY was Noah exempt from punishment inflicted upon the rest of mankind?

If those were the requirements for exemption, were there NO people among all of mankind who were ‘sound and healthy’ (with no ideas of sinlessness) and ‘just’?

Where Noah’s family members also ‘perfect’? Unless they were, why were they given exemption?