Curse of Ham

[JohnH]

To be fair to the Mormons that sort of thing was popular when they were founded. The distinction they hold is not one of creativity but rather longevity as they never moved away from it. Google "British Israelism" if you want to go down that sort of rabbit hole. I have ancestors who were influenced by that.

Long ago I went to a home fellowship with a guy who promoted British Israeliism. It was puzzling me to as a then-teenager since he didn't seem remotely British to me at all.

[Neto]

We all have some nut cases in our history. At least we (Plautdietsch / "Russian Mennonites") do. Claus Epp for one, then there was also a group that others called the 'Templers', because they wanted to emigrate to Israel to rebuild the temple (in the late 1800's). (I'm not sure if any actually made it there.)

[Swiss Brah]

The curse was on Canaan not Ham so that theory is DOA. Noah cursed Canaan because Ham „uncovered Noah‘s nakedness“ which is a euphemism for having intercourse with Noahs wife / his mother to assert dominance (think of Absalom taking David‘s harem), and Canaan was the incestuous issue of that intercourse, which is why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham.

Wife: I don’t think I agree with that interpretation (I just assumed Canaan was a chip off the old block), but I definitely agree that the curse was on Canaan and not any of Hams other children. I just chose the title because I didn’t want to give the spoiler alert in the title and that’s how I always had it described to me.

Listen to this you might be convinced of that „interpretation“.

[Soloist]

The curse was on Canaan not Ham so that theory is DOA. Noah cursed Canaan because Ham „uncovered Noah‘s nakedness“ which is a euphemism for having intercourse with Noahs wife / his mother to assert dominance (think of Absalom taking David‘s harem), and Canaan was the incestuous issue of that intercourse, which is why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham.

Wife: I don’t think I agree with that interpretation (I just assumed Canaan was a chip off the old block), but I definitely agree that the curse was on Canaan and not any of Hams other children. I just chose the title because I didn’t want to give the spoiler alert in the title and that’s how I always had it described to me.

Listen to this you might be convinced of that „interpretation“.

I tend to frown on videos, because they rely more on emotion or unverifiable information.
I would be perfectly happy to consider the argument if you posted a transcript, but I’m not going to bother listening/watching.
I also tend to look at them, videos in general as suspect… and podcasts for that matter

[Swiss Brah]

Wife: I don’t think I agree with that interpretation (I just assumed Canaan was a chip off the old block), but I definitely agree that the curse was on Canaan and not any of Hams other children. I just chose the title because I didn’t want to give the spoiler alert in the title and that’s how I always had it described to me.

Listen to this you might be convinced of that „interpretation“.

I tend to frown on videos, because they rely more on emotion or unverifiable information.
I would be perfectly happy to consider the argument if you posted a transcript, but I’m not going to bother listening/watching.
I also tend to look at them, videos in general as suspect… and podcasts for that matter

It‘s not a video, it‘s audio. You can download the transcript here
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/n ... of-canaan/

[Soloist]

I have to admit that isn’t something I’d want to ever read again.
I can ask my friend about the idiom referenced, he knows Hebrew and I don’t. Regardless though it seems a stretch to curse a line that wasn’t born when the text seems to suggest Ham’s son was already born but it’s talking about a present act.

[ken_sylvania]

I have to admit that isn’t something I’d want to ever read again.
I can ask my friend about the idiom referenced, he knows Hebrew and I don’t. Regardless though it seems a stretch to curse a line that wasn’t born when the text seems to suggest Ham’s son was already born but it’s talking about a present act.

Some people get their jollies from projecting every last bit of indecency that they can imagine onto the Biblical text.

[Swiss Brah]

How should we then read it? Ham went into Noahs tent and saw Noah in the nude? And for that Noah cursed Ham‘s son? How does that make sense?

I assure you I do not get the jollies from indecency but the Bible contains many passages that show us human depravity. We can‘t just skip the parts we don‘t like.

[ken_sylvania]

How should we then read it? Ham went into Noahs tent and saw Noah in the nude? And for that Noah cursed Ham‘s son? How does that make sense?

I assure you I do not get the jollies from indecency but the Bible contains many passages that show us human depravity. We can‘t just skip the parts we don‘t like.

Makes just as much sense as cursing a baby who hadn't yet been born, just because of what his father did.

[Coifi]

How should we then read it? Ham went into Noahs tent and saw Noah in the nude? And for that Noah cursed Ham‘s son? How does that make sense?

I assure you I do not get the jollies from indecency but the Bible contains many passages that show us human depravity. We can‘t just skip the parts we don‘t like.

Makes just as much sense as cursing a baby who hadn't yet been born, just because of what his father did.

I'm familiar with this interpretation, Swiss.

If it is any use for the others, read Leviticus 18 and apply the language there to the Noah and Ham passage. Applying a strict interpretation of the language there makes Swiss's interpretation the most Biblical one.

"The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness." Lev 18:8

As for gross things in the Bible, they are everywhere. The Biblical narrative basically paints all the baddies in the Old Testament as having their origin (and continued existence) in gross sexual sin. So not only does Canaan fit the language, but the pattern across the Old Testament.