My personal interpretation has been that seeing his father nakedness was in and of itself not the issue. It was when Ham went to his brothers about it. Since this is not that far removed from Adam, where nakedness references sin and shame,. Adam and Eve most likely gave their children and grandchildren a sever complex about nudity. When Ham went to his brothers, he was shaming his father. He basically was ridiculing his father to his brothers, and also left his father in a shamed state. So he dishonored his father. He exposed his father's shame. The reason Canaan gets cursed,? Two possiblities. One reason, God had already blessed Ham, Shem and Japheth. A curse would be going against a blessing, and the blessing came from God, so the curse could be viewed as going against God? So he curses Canaan. Another reason may be out of petty revenge. Noah was shamed by his son, so Ham (a father) would see his own son shamed. As far as the extreme action. Noah has the title "Righteous of his generation." A generation God wiped out in the Flood. The amendment "of his generation" would imply Noah was the least rotted fruit, but not free from rot. This may be an example of that rot. I have always taken this story as a statement "God can use anyone. But, just because God uses them, doesn't make them good." Really love your content on TikTok and that you a very straight forward with the facts. Hope to see more videos.

This was so fascinating! The different ways that the story might have come together, the readings, the cultural background behind why the “seeing the nakedness” was a big deal, as well as exploring why different readings could be compelling. Great video!

Thank you for your take on this. Simplicity and soberness are appreciated here. Blessings.

First, I absolutely love the longer format and being able to listen to you expound on a topic! Second, thank you for this fascinating look at this section.

I wrote an article years ago on this passage and my interpretation of it is the same as yours. I could not believe how many commenters attacked me because I refused to subscribe to the salacious viewpoint! I was accused of everything from being ignorant to an outright heretic because I endorsed the simple, straightforward explanation. It seems like so many people just don’t find the Bible sensational enough and they so desperately WANT to read more into things than is actually there! So sad. Great video and very nice handling of the subject.

I can't believe this is the first time I'm hearing of the etiological composite text reading of this story. It solves so many problems. Where have you been all my life my friend?

I’m so glad you have a KZfaq. Your TikToks are great, but I love getting this more thorough explanations.

TIL another term for Occam’s razor - the principle of parsimony, I like how it includes “most economic way” too.

Leviticus 20:11 If a man lies with his father’s wife he has uncovered is father’s nakedness.

This was great! Would love to hear a similar examination of how these same metaphors might be interpreted in Ruth, regarding her interaction with Boaz wherein she, “uncovers his feet.”

almost 15 minutes of hearing you speak goes by just as quickly as 3! here's hoping you're cooking up some even longer form content :)

Thank you for your perspective about "seeing nakedness = seeing shame" as was in Gen. 3:7. It is thought provoking!

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. -Leviticus 18:8

Thank you, Dan. This was a great explanation for one of the odd stories found in the Bible.

I've never heard of the interpretation that included r*pe and incest! Very interesting, since I was a kid I thought this story was really odd, but this cleares up the meaning of it.

Thank you. That was boggling my mind. I lean on the side of protecting their fathers honour

Love the KZfaq videos, something I don’t think can be explained well in 3min TikToks

Thankyou. This is fascinating and also provides a model for reading the OT

Dan, thank you for making these videos. Could you do one on the the oath that jephthah took? I've always thought that story deserves additional context from an expert. I have even heard that possibly there is a translation error and his daughter was only devoted to God (not sacrificed).

Thanks for the discussion at the end about how the different readings serve different purposes, i.e. the salient one vs. the mundane one that is most supported. Very interesting.

I know this isn’t exactly what the video was talking about, but I think it’s also important to see this in the full context of the Genesis narrative. Noah’s story continually draws clear parallels to the story of creation earlier, and this part in particular is mirroring the Fall. We have a partaking of fruit, someone seeing nakedness, a covering of said nakedness, and a pronouncement of a curse. Given how often the Biblical narrative uses clothing as a reference to God’s grace and mercy, I wonder if a big part of this is that Ham in this case acts as the serpent, enabling the exposure of Noah’s nakedness or shame, while Shem and Japheth act in the way God did, by providing a garment to cover up the shame or nakedness. I think it would tend to support the more straightforward interpretation for how the ancient Israelites would have read the story, but I also think it provides a thread for us to unravel today to see how the story is calling us to act as well.

I'm always puzzled by the amount of effort put into making the straightforward parts weird. Aren't the actual weird parts enough to keep us busy?

I like how he demystify the mystery

Great video! Could you put the text on screen (on the side), just to see the words aswell when you read the text. I'd love to hear more about the current state of the text analysis, like which parts are from another story and are there clues of what that story was all about. Thank you so much!

Great video! I appreciate the way you broke down the thought process. As someone who's trying to get better at critical thinking, that's so helpful! And yay for interpretations that don't involve raping women 🎉

I love Karen Armstrong take on the story; “ Noah instead of being a source of blessing, he had become like the first Adam, a curse to others. His righteousness had proved inadequate. After the flood, he remained in denial, shutting out the devastated world in a self-induced stupor. Noah would not be the only damaged survivor, unable to assimilate his experience and wreaking his vengeance upon others. Some of the worst atrocities of history have occurred as a result blaming others for our own crimes. (Christians accused Islam of being a murderously violent and intolerant religion at a time when they were fighting their own brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Near East)” From her book, in the beginning.

Leviticus 20:11 : If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Is quoted as to why some are told as why some have said it was a son sleeping with his mother. I remember being told that. Also in Leviticus 18:8 : [8] The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

Seeing (saw) Noah's nakedness is not a SIN, that is why Noah said, "You do not simply SAW," what makes Ham's atrocity to God was his "Disrespectful Laughter" to the Prophet of God after he saw the nakedness of his father instead of hiding with cloth/blanket Noah's literal nakedness due to drunkenness... just like what Shem and Japeth did... Amen.

My mother once told me about being a young wife and living in Brownsville, Texas. She had neighbor who was a very opinionated Baptist (she was a lifelong Catholic). He swore categorically the curse was most certainly upon Black people thereby making it logical that they should be enslaved! Also he claimed that monasteries and nunneries had secret underground passageways where they could meet for clandestine affaires! I found this hilarious because, as young as I was when I first heard this, I was aware that if 2 people wanted to boink, they could find any number to do the deed! And there's the fact that due to flooding, basements are exceeding rare in Texas!

This verse seems to support the maternal theory quite firmly: Leviticus 20:11: "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness." Genetic defects makes perfect sense for a curse befalling a child rather than an adult. The ordering of the sons is way different in every translation and no one actually knows, so desrcibing Shem and Japheth as brothers of Canaan could be using their names to refer to their lineages (metonymy). Covering someone with a blanket who had just been sexually humiliated, either via cuckolding or direct assault, while they lie in a bed is perfectly normal in a modern context and indicates care for well-being and honor.

Thanks Dan! Much appreciated! 🎉

Ironic, or perhaps fitting, that this etiology gets a second life as an American Christian justification for slavery.

This explanation makes the most sense. People are missing to put this within the socio-cultural context of that time. Seeing a person naked is taboo in very conservative cultures. What more to see the nakedness of family relatives within a religious context striving for holiness.

Seems like a lot of conjecture and guessing. Also, was it wrong for Noah to be naked in his own tent?

The very first thing I look at in this story is the fact that Noah was drunk! That says a whole lot just by itself! How can a hungover man make sense of what happened the night before!

Hey Dan love the videos. So one of the arguments for the curse of Ham or Canaan story is essentially as propaganda? Interesting how this was used to subjugate the Canaanites and also for African enslavement.

Hey Dan, love your videos. I always assumed some sort of “time jump” in this story. Not only was Canaan likely the youngest of Ham’s children, but Noah came off the ark and all of a sudden he has a farm and a vineyard? In Genesis 9:20 it says he planted a vineyard. Not sure how long that takes, but from scratch, especially after a devastating flood, I would imagine it being complicated to successfully start a farm🤷🏽‍♂️. Anyway, I thought the sin, whatever it was, happened as a direct interaction with Noah and Canaan. He was old enough to bear responsibility for the act, and be the receipient of the curse of Noah. But you are right, so much speculation, maybe it’s not meant for us to read into it so much.

This was a bit helpful but still confusing. I don’t know why the Bible is so complicated. I get frustrated sometimes, but this is why I look for videos such as yours and others to try and understand a little more and not give up. Thank you for your work.

Leviticus 18:8 says “the nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy fathers’s nakedness”

Love your TikTok account and looking forward to more longform content from you in the future!

1) the extreme reaction to not defending his father sounds a bit similar to laws of hospitality and the extreme curses that could come from offending that. 2) I thought the Israelites were originally Canaanites. Is the subjugation the same as just the Kingdom of Israel unifying the Canaanite tribes by force?

My .02 and I apologize for hitting you with so many comments. I just found your channel and I like it very much. I am trying to crack the template code but I am not formally educated. I struggle to deliver what I see. To me, there is the physical world then our inner world. Mental. Electro-chemically stored experiences and emotions from our individual life experiences. We become those until we realize that we have become those. Those are garments. In the physical world we want to be covered. In the spiritual, (mental experience) we seek to become naked. Devoid of the emotional attachments to out past experiences that we may leave them behind. Nothing to hide which makes us feel bad and continue to see a cyclical return of the denied experience. In the Gospel of Thomas is the idea that one will see the Kingdom within when one can strip off their garments and put them under their feet, standing on them. "Naked" shows up quite a bit in Jewish works as an analog to carry that teaching. IMHO. Thank you. A breath of fresh air and someone I understand.

Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: Lev. 18 (most of chapter discusses this) Your thought?

Sons were also born to Shem whose OLDER brother was Japheth; Shem was the ancestors of all the sons of Eber. - Genesis 10:21 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his YOUNGEST son had done to him, - Genesis 9:24 Japheth, Shem, and Ham is the order from oldest to youngest.

Man can't cursed what God has not

Wow. This was so helpful and informative . Thank you.

Leviticus 18:8 says specifically what the father's nakedness is: "The nakedness of your father's woman you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness." The scripture is clear. No guessing needed.

New to biblical scholarship, quick question: in terms of the Bible, does etiological usually also imply non-literal, or non-historical? Or do scholars recognize the etiology but also presume most biblical stories to be factual accounts? Genuinely curious! (Btw, love your channel and your TikTok!)

Insist was practiced in Canaan. Leviticus 18:6 addresses this.

What if Noah's wife was with Noah, drunk, and passed out ?

I was a Christian feom the age of 7 to around 40ish. Yeah, my deconvertion was a process, but it didn't happen overnight. Basically, I began to question Christianity by the read of the bible itself. But this particular passage was never problematic for me. I'd never want to see my parents naked, I'd be ashamed if it accidentally happens, and I'd protect my parents' honour even with my own life if needed. And although I agreed a curse would be a too hard punishment, my reasoning with this passage was to teach people to respect their parents. Abraham story was way, way more problematic for me, this one I could never make any sense since when I started reading the bible from a very young age.

I may be a pain in the butt to you on TikTok, but I really love your teachings. This KZfaq channel is great! I look forward to more, thanks Dan!

Take Note: There is a BIG difference between "SEEING the nakedness of a person"... and... "UNCOVERING the nakedness of a person." SEEING/LOOKING only needs/requires the Sight/Eyes and it is not a Sin in the Law of Moses/Mosaic... while UNCOVERING/EXPOSING needs all human senses plus requires physical ACTION... is a SIN in those days... When Christ Jesus came, SEEING/LOOKING with malicious intent/desire at others (most especially with women) is also a SIN from their Hearts... Amen.

Great discussion! I'm not sure if it needs to be a composite if it's an etiology justifying the oppression of Canaanites, tho. Like: if Canaan is the child of Ham and the whole point is justifying Israeli aggression towards Canaanites, then that explains the presence of Ham instead of Canaan in the story(because he's the point of branching btwn the Canaanite and Israeli line, essentially), and it doesn't seem to me like you'd need to posit a story about Ham and another about Canaan being merged.

i really like these quick, deep dives into a small section of text

Dan, please think about Canaan being referred to as the youngest son. I am no scholar, but have noticed in life that Persians refer to grandchildren as sons and daughters. Perhaps Ham saw Canaan and Noah? Ham didn't spell it out to his brothers in the text, but Ham's brothers were empathetic to their brother and therefore covered their Father. Perhaps it is a possibility this is what happened since Canaan was cursed and not Ham.

Loved it! I was wondering if you could do a video on alcohol(wine) passages in the Bible and their meaning. The usage of fermented and non-fermented wine. Does the Bible really condemn drinking?

There's a very sneaky assumption made in the 2005 paper; that Noah's wife was the mother of his three sons. The text doesn't demand it, and the logical resolution to this passage is that this is Noah's second wife. That would create parallels between the story of Reuben and Bilhah, and Absalom and the concubines of David. It also explains why Ham would boast to his brothers; he wouldn't expect them to be impressed by sleeping with his mother (that should have resulted in a beating), but if it was a second wife it makes much more sense, especially as a power play. It also explains the first verse in the section telling us who Noah's three sons were, that Ham was the father of Canaan, and reason for reiterating that Noah had three sons. Noah may have spoken as if Canaan was his fourth son, born of this second wife, until he realized that Ham had cuckolded him. It also removes the need for time gaps. There are many traditions about people believing they are descended from a 4th son of Noah, and likely the Canaanites told that tale as well. This chapter makes a lot of sense as a specific polemic against that claim. Canaan could have been conceived on the ark, but born after and he might have been running around for a while since it takes a few years to go from planting a vineyard to harvesting wine. This also explains why he would consign Canaan to be a servant in the tents of Shem and Japheth, because he would have sent the child away with his mother, and he wouldn't reward Ham for his behavior by giving him a second wife. But from a theological standpoint the issue of nakedness is enough of a theme throughout Genesis to make sense.

Could it be that he violated the customs of the time? He went into the tent without obtaining permission? And then saw his father's nakedness, and then told his brothers.

Matthew is where we get the definition of nakedness.

Are there any other instances of texts in the bible being emended or combined?

I have found from intensive study of scripture for many years that God allows our punishment to be "designed" by our "crime." Also, because we judge things from scripture by our own culture and understanding we have great diffuculty realizing what the wording is trying to convey. I personally believe all pertinent info is present (usually) in the layout of the story or event. There is no need to search and grasp for extreme explanations and adaptations from other info in scripture. Sometimes just researching of historical and cultural, and definitions and given some time to ponder the data for a while, we can see more clearly what is being conveyed.

I always wondered if the "missing link" was based on a story of Noah getting drunk, and being so wasted that he "tries something" with young Canaan. Then people find out and the whole thing is blamed on Canaan. Like "oh man, Pops was in his cups again, and you know how he gets." But with the hack-and-patch job the modern text has, and lacking any other texts that would shed light on it... We may never know more than the broad strokes that are presented in the text.

"Seeing' nakedness means 'uncovering' nakedness. Read the verse again.

I enjoyed your discussion on this topic! Thanks Dan! Hugh Nibley talks about this story as the idea that Ham took the holy garments of Adam which had been passed down to Noah and took them and made a copy of them to try to claim the right to rule which made it down through his descendants to Nimrod and Possibly Esau.

It’s not that the text isn’t interesting, it’s that cursing the grandson for Ham’s indiscretion doesn’t make sense…

The documentary hypothesis shows the flood story is two complete stories that stand alone. The J and P stories. In one the the stories it "appears" that Canaan was the 4th son, but got demoted when the 2 stories were merged.

I have seen a number of interpretations that bring in the supposed angle of maternal incest. And, as in all such like interpretations, they focus on what supports them-and ignore the parts of the story that don't. I'm glad you've seen through that. There is really little reason to take seriously such an off-the-wall theory. As you brought out, if it really was a case of Ham having sex with his mother, then why would his sons see the need to cover the nakedness of Noah? But I do not see this as being some kind of composite account slotted together from more than one source. The story is pretty straightforward. Nonetheless, on the surface it doesn't explain why it was Canaan was cursed and not Ham. One does have to dig a little bit to get closer to the truth, but not so close as to think that, because nakedness is often spoken of in relation to sexual sin in other parts of Scripture, that it must mean that a sexual sin was necessarily involved. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think that the order Shem, Ham and Japheth are mentioned in indicates their birth order. Genesis 10:21 reads-“Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.” Japheth is clearly called the elder. And your New Revised Standard Version even renders Genesis 9:24 as-“When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done unto him...” This clearly shows Ham as being the youngest son, and not Japheth. But this does nothing to answer the question as to why it was that Canaan was cursed. But there are a few facts that can't be countered. First of all, Noah was never spoken of as having any children after Japheth, Shem and Ham, even though he lived for three hundred-fifty years more after the Flood. Secondly-Canaan was Ham's fourth son. Could it be possible that Ham did something to his father (more than just seeing him naked), something that would have prevented Noah from ever begetting a fourth son? I'm not talking about castration here-not necessarily. It's hard to imagine Noah having the strength and energy to rise up and curse Canaan, had he actually been subjected to such a terrible wound as that. But be that as it may-something of that nature would explain why Noah laid a curse upon Canaan. “As you have cursed me by preventing me from ever having a fourth son-though you have begotten a fourth son, I make him a curse to YOU!” And why would Noah curse Canaan to be a servant of servants? It would make a lot of sense once one realized that we were talking about a dynastic struggle. Noah was in direct lineage of the line of Seth. Seth's name means “chosen one” (literally, “put,” as one who is “put” in place of another). Contrary to the all-too-popular idea of seeing the Sons of God that came unto the daughters of men, as fallen angels-I believe they were actually of the royal line of Seth. They had a great legacy that was, unfortunately corrupted in the end, and Noah alone kept to their ancient values of virtue. I believe also that, though the earliest mention of the Nazarites comes in Numbers Chapter 6, I believe it highly likely that the pre-Flood Kings of Seth might well have been Nazarites. Part of the Nazarite vow was to never touch any fruit of the vine. This is, of course, a theory. But it would explain Noah getting drunk. He was the last member of the Sethite Nazarites. But they had all become corrupted and died in the Flood. By drinking of the vine, Noah was washing his hands of the old way. I said a dynastic struggle? Shem had been chosen to succeed Noah (this would have been by God's choice, as happened when David was chosen, though David was not the eldest son of Jesse.) Ham, however, was jealous and wanted that honor to go to him, and his line. Noah's ending of the old ways and rituals would have put an end to that. Ham would have wanted revenge against his father for putting an end to his hopes of ruler ship over the family. And this likely was why he boasted to his brothers about what he had seen. And perhaps the Medieval figure of the Fisher King, from Arthurian legends, has some bearing here. For the Fisher King, the Keeper of the Holy Grail, was wounded in the thighs and was thus rendered impotent to fulfill his mandate of begetting an heir.

Wait, so what about Canaan? Is this to say that it’s about Canaan, who’s his youngest? I got lost in that part.

I think people searching for meaning in the passage miss the entire point. We're talking a guy who lives through a flood that kills everyone and who was talking directly with God.... Getting off the boat, planting a vineyard and getting drunk which caused trouble. That message hits too close to home for people looking for a message. I'm not talking about getting drunk. I'm talking holding men in high esteem who talk directly to God. That's just my take which supports my agenda.

So interesting, thank you

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. It’s not that deep. Ham slept with His father’s wife. So Noah cursed their offspring. Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Man, ive been wondering this for a while.

It is no wonder that the modern culture would jump at an opportunity to view this story in a new and utterly heinous way…. ….”As it was in the days of Noah.”

This story from the Bible bring up a particular fact about the Universe. No matter what has happened or is happening, there are laws, statutes and principles put in place by God that will not be violated without consequences to follow.

Thank you for providing a scholarly perspective on this! I appreciate your videos. So basically the part about Canaan being cursed is essentially Israelite propaganda?

I was always taught that noah wasnt wearing his holy temple garments, and that was why he was called naked.

The story doesn't make much sense regardless of how it is spun, but I absolutely agree that any sort of narrative other than what the text states is a really big reach. If we take it literal, why should Ham be shamed? The way I read it, he did not expect to see Noah in this state and did the RIGHT thing by warning his brothers. All three did their part in protecting the "honor" of their father. Canaan has no responsibility whatsoever and the curse is unwarranted. Noah is at fault for A. bringing shame to himself and B. Unjustly punishing ANYONE else for his own actions. Noah caused needless and catastrophic suffering because of his own pride and embarrassment. It is not a good moral lesson. It is not a good narrative.

I’m reading from the NIV version and the amplified version and they both said that Ham is the father of Caanan. And the Amplified said that Ham is the younger son of Noah.

An indigenous Australian scholar once explained that the reason their stories contained extreme theme of murder, violence, rape, etc., was because those things are memorable. And in cultures of verbal storytelling, making memorable stories as if the up most importance! In response so said: “You’ve just explained the Bible!” The scholar then looked at me and said something along the lines of: “Yes, we need to see these types of shared humanity in order to heal and connect.” Bottomline: all human beings/cultures remember obscure stories. The Bible was originally a verbal tradition, it contains emotionally charged stories because they are an effective means of presenting allegorises that will be remembered by the listeners.

how did apple trees, orange tree's, garlic, carrots etc survive a full year at the bottom of the ocean?

Always protect the honor of ur father ☝🏻

God would never have chosen Noah to be the only man to survive the Flood with his family if he had not been a decent and upright person. The problem with today's culture is that hardly anyone can understand that a naked drunk father is something dishonorable. Our society has fallen too low to consider this impure, so a made-up story of one's mother being raped is needed to justify this curse. Your explanation is simple and logical given how Noah was seen through God's eyes. Greeting from Germany. God bless all of you!

Wow this makes so much more sense.. Somehow I feel it relates to the commandment to honor your father and mother. From the narrative of this story the scope of honoring your father and mother goes beyond obeying their authority but also protecting their moral reputation and status.. According to the premise given by Dan the man, Ham made his father lose face among his brothers. In todays society we do not make that to be very important. In Middle Eastern societies the honor and reputation of the family was in ancient times as it is today taken very seriously. Especially in Muslim families. so I can understand how this story make so much more sense now. The reason why it is hard for the american christians to understand this passage is because they do not honor fathers and mothers in such a high regard because it isnt part of the american culture as it is in middle eastern cultures. How do people here in the US honor their Parents. You put them in nursing homes. Isnt that the norm in society today.😢😢😢

Super helpful video

The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, suggests that the brief narrative “refers to some abominable deed in which Canaan seems to have been implicated.” (Edited by J. H. Hertz, London, 1972, p. 34) And, after noting that the Hebrew word translated “son” in verse 24 may mean “grandson,” this source states: “The reference is evidently to Canaan.” The Soncino Chumash also points out that some believe Canaan “indulged a perverted lust upon [Noah],” and that the expression “youngest son” refers to Canaan, who was the youngest son of Ham.​-Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1956, p. 47.

Best theory I have heard. Ham had sex with his mother and Canaan was the child.

Just take it for what it says. He looked upon his fathers nakedness. Ham's decendants were cursed and they became slaves to their brothers. If you want more clarification, pray about it.

Ezekiel 18:20-21 KJV The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Thank You

I blame Noah he shouldn't have gotten drunk.

This is informative. Thank you very much. I must admit I'm still sold on the more carnal side to the story. It just makes more sense to me based on Noah's rage, as opposed to just an old drunk dad yelling at his kids. I don't think it would be out of bounds to also recognize that Noah's curse was not necessarily from God; at least, the text never explicitly indicates that God endorses it. But I think V L, below (above?), makes a good point, that these people (assuming the story is historical) would have been pretty severely traumatized by this point...months at sea with a shipload of animals, everyone else in your former world is dead. Even if it were just a local flood (which is what I believe, personally), they would have disembarked into a post-apocalyptic, hellish landscape. Something else: It takes 3 years for grape vines to produce fruit. We read such a truncated version of the story..." _Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded (or '...soil, was the first') to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent_ ," that we think Noah just got drunk right away, as soon as they got off the boat, as if the grapevines had matured overnight. We don't know how long they had been living alone in this "Godforsaken" world; how would anyone's family do under such circumstances?

The grossness of Noah is far worse than a single rape (which McClellan has shown to be highly unlikely): Noah calls for hereditary slavery of a significant portion of humanity based on one dishonorable act. When people discuss whether the Bible condones slavery, I don’t hear them mention this story about the man God considered morally blameless.

I am agnostic on what really happened. I read many years ago that it was related to the blessings a father spoke to his sons. The sons put ther hands on their father and recieved a blessing. Speculation I read was something a long the lines that the brother was trying to steal his blessing . Of course he received a curse instead. This is the first time I have heard the incest with the mother. The interesting thing to me was that the father could actually bless or curse their children etc. I always read over that like it was no big deal.

Leviticus speaks specifically about incest and refers directly to this story so this was indeed a incest act thus why Canaan cursed. Not sure why Christians are ashamed of admitting the truth

so as i listen to pastors and hams sin .. i just become a bit numb disrepect um yes to a father yes gossip yes but i feel a bit in my mind .. saying we must not know the whole story .. because noah sinned God says be not drunk with wine .. its like when pastors preach about fornication and confessions but then they do much worse .. so its weird im not questionning God .. to curse hams son and all the descendents .. just thinking if my grandma sinned and my mom cursed her sisters cursed im cursed my kids cursed um how do we change this terrible outcome

Still why would he condemn Ham for what would appear to be a very bad act but not an unforgivable one ?

All of the speculation about this story is folly, but there does seems to be one explanation that makes everything tie together nice and tidy: 1. Noah's nakedness was his wife. 2. But she was not Ham's mother, hence, Noah did indeed have 2 wives. The prior wife may have died (all 3 kids' mother). 3. The story encompasses more time than most people ascribe. Ham might have been killed immediately upon the knowledge of what happened, so cursing him would be pointless. 4. Canaan was born 9 months later, and for the second time, violating the womb that belonged to Noah. 5. Noah could no longer be with his only remaining wife, and there were no other valid women to take wives of, so his command to be fruitful and multiply had been terminated by both Ham and Canaan (of course, 99.999% by Ham). 6. Noah's wife may have consented, and possibly also been killed. Doesnt seem likely if Canaan was allowed to be born. 7. If this were not Ham's mother (i.e. Noah's first wife), then Ham would not have committed incest, but he still would have broken God's law, so an additional curse would be warranted. 8. The other 2 brothers acted to console their step mother, warranting blessings.

This is so funny. A 13 minute video essentially to say "it's not that deep bro." I love it.

How can you acknowledge that this text is a composite, and then stick so vehemently to the line that Ham merely "saw" his father's nakedness? If it's a composite text, that has been in some way altered, wouldn't it then follow that context has been altered or removed regarding the nature of the transgression? The idea that Hamm raped his mother is a relatively modern take, but the idea that Ham either castrated or raped his father is an interpretation that dates back to the first and second centuries C.E. in Rabbinical discourse, it's not a modern take, so easily dismissed. It's literally given in the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 70a. It's not 21st century sensationalism. "Hehe guess what I just saw" is context that does not exist, there's no indication scripturally that Ham/Canaan mocked Noah for his drunkenness. It would be equally as plausible to say that, as the youngEST child, as you say, he was not sure what to do, and told his brothers so that Noah could be covered, as Shem and Japheth needed to work together to cover Noah. The biggest issues here are that Noah KNEW what had been done to him, and he curses Ham and not Canaan. The text does not identify the transgressor as Noah's youngEST son, merely his youngER son, which could apply to Ham or to Japheth, but absolves Shem. The reason that Canaan is cursed and not Hamm has been debated for at least 2,000 years, and what I find to be the most likely conclusion given the cultural paradigm is that the Lord previously blessed Hamm, and so Noah did not have the power to curse him. Additionally, Noah KNEW what had been done to him, he wasn't told what had been done to him, which heavily implies some physical injury or condition. There is an incongruity between the act and the punishment if Canaan was Noah's youngest son and saw him naked, therefore him and his descendants are to be enslaved for all time, one that has been recognized and contended with by Rabbis since at least the time Jesus was alive, if not earlier. I understand that it's etiological in nature regarding the perception of other Canaanites in the Bible, considering that the Israelites were also Canaanites, historically speaking. I'm saying that, that being the case, the transgression of Ham would have been all the more egregious for it, particularly given later verses which associate the Canaanites with rampant sexual deviancy. There's also an argument to be made here for parallelism, Noah was uncovered in his tent, Ham saw/uncovered his father's nakedness, and Shem and Japheth covered their father's nakedness. A common literary device in Hebrew, e.g. keeper of Sheep / Brother's keeper. Insofar as why Shem and Japheth were concerned with covering their father's nakedness. It wouldn't necessarily be to ensure that they did not repeat their brother's sin, only to avoid seeing their father's shame. Assuming that, as it's been given, the transgression in question was not merely SEEING Noah naked but mocking him and not covering Noah up himself, and, in so doing, dishonoring him. Shem and Japheth WERE covering him up. So why go to such lengths to avoid seeing him if they were concerned about his honor and not mocking him?