Ham saw his father naked, why Noah cursed Canaan (Son of Ham) instead of Ham?

[MrE]

No not so.

Gen 9:23 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.

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

Gen_9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Pro_25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Deu_19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

You've posted this repeatedly. I don't know how to make it more clear. If you read Leviticus 18 in it's entirety, and not cherry-picking only the parts that suit you, you would see that the text separates the two concepts clearly. It talks about this denude (nude/nakedness) idea, AND then it talks also about approaching someone for sexual relations. While one goes with the other, they are not the same.

ervah (naked/nude) versus galah (to strip someone to have sex with them)

 

[UnoiAmarah]

When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him.

Right, Noah was referring unto Shem, who was the youngest son of Noah.

These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: Gen 11:10

If Shem was 100 years old when he begat Arphaxad, two years after the flood then Shem would have been 98 the time of the flood.

Ham had four sons and only the youngest was cursed by Noah

Canaan was the oldest son of Ham, according to scripture.

 

[Cameron143]

Fair enough but just because we don't have the ability to do so naturally does not mean we are not trying to do so with science. At present we do research with animal genes and how they could be used for humanity. Transhumanism is a thing and what we can't do naturally does not stop us from trying to do so with science. Gene modification is something we do with food and animals now and won't be long something we do to ourselves.

So just because we can't do so naturally does not make it so we can't do so we just use perverted science so in the case of angels instead of science they would use perverted supernatural. In truth though we are already doing what is not natural yet we are able to do so just by other means. Like it says nothing will be impossible to them, I think we are entering into those times and days with much more to come.

However, I appreciate your takes bro and do find logic behind them

But science isn't supernatural. We may be able to modify many things, but we aren't leaving the realm of the natural.
And I enjoy the depth of your responses. They are far more deeply reasoned than most of my contributions.

 

[MrE]

Fair enough but just because we don't have the ability to do so naturally does not mean we are not trying to do so with science. At present we do research with animal genes and how they could be used for humanity. Transhumanism is a thing and what we can't do naturally does not stop us from trying to do so with science. Gene modification is something we do with food and animals now and won't be long something we do to ourselves.

So just because we can't do so naturally does not make it so we can't do so we just use perverted science so in the case of angels instead of science they would use perverted supernatural. In truth though we are already doing what is not natural yet we are able to do so just by other means. Like it says nothing will be impossible to them, I think we are entering into those times and days with much more to come.

However, I appreciate your takes bro and do find logic behind them

Not on topic, but interesting just the same. I've studied genetics extensively for my own sake, but there is very strong blood evidence for an intermixing of types. The conversation gets uncomfortable quickly, but if you research human blood types, you'll very quickly run into something called the Rh blood factor.

Humans are either Rh Positive, or Rh Negative.

"Rhesus factor" named for the Rhesus monkey which also carries the gene, and is a protein that lives on the surface of our red blood cells.

The genetic evidence strongly suggests an interbreeding at some long distant past between species.

 

[MrE]

Right, Noah was referring unto Shem, who was the youngest son of Noah.

Not quite right-- of course there is a possibility-- that the scripture is referring to Ham's youngest son as being the culprit. If you read the whole section in context, it's about Ham actually, so when Noah awakes and realizes what his youngest son had done to him, the "his youngest son" could be referring to Ham's youngest son, rather than his own (Noah's youngest son-Ham) had done to him.

Noah, a man of the soil, began to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of the wine, he got drunk and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers who were outside. Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his (Ham's) youngest son had done to him.

So he said,
“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
he will be to his brothers.”

This would definitely explain why he curses Ham, and not Canaan--- AND it eliminates entirely the idea that Canaan was born nine months later as a result of the sexual relations some suggest.

Canaan was the oldest son of Ham, according to scripture.

Not anywhere, that I know of. Rather-- scripture is clear that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. We know this also not only because Cush is named as Ham's first/oldest son-- Cush is also the one that Ham gifts the stolen garment to. It ends up then being gifted to Cush's oldest son-- Nimrod, who becomes a great king by virtue of this special garment.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

God does not call himself a kind and neither does he call us a kind being made in his image.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, Gen 1:25

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. Eccl 3:18-19

Luke 5:32

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: 1 John 3:8-10

 

[lrs68]

So just because we can't do so naturally does not make it so we can't do so we just use perverted science so in the case of angels instead of science they would use perverted supernatural.

Even though I removed the majority of your post it doesn't mean I disagree with you but something triggered my thoughts when I read the portion I now have quoted.

I don't believe the Fallen Angels had intimacy or sexual relationships with the human women at all. I do believe that the Fallen Angels did impregnate the human women and created the Nephilim. But I believe it was done in a similar way how the Holy Spirit of God overshadowed Mary and then Jesus was born.

I simply believe they took a fertilized egg and placed it within the womb of the human women. I think in terms of modern medical science compared to invitro. We're basically placing a fertilized egg into a woman's womb that for some reason isn't able to either produce eggs or become pregnant due to other issues.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

All good stuff. Are you suggesting that humans can produce something other than humans?
In biology, living things are classified by domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Species is the level in which organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I've always thought of this as kind.

This is the no-true Scotsman logical fallacy, though. If two organisms do interbreed and produce fertile offspring, it would therefore be argued that they were the same species anyway so that's how they were able to do so.

I don't think God would have commanded against it if it were impossible, and its certainly clear that different "species" can produce infertile offspring - I don't think there's any mention in scripture whether most of the Nephilim were fertile or infertile.

 

[Mem]

Humans are either Rh Positive, or Rh Negative.

"Rhesus factor" named for the Rhesus monkey which also carries the gene, and is a protein that lives on the surface of our red blood cells.

The genetic evidence strongly suggests an interbreeding at some long distant past between species.

Nice! This means I'm missing the monkey gene?

 

[Mem]

Not quite right-- of course there is a possibility-- that the scripture is referring to Ham's youngest son as being the culprit. If you read the whole section in context, it's about Ham actually, so when Noah awakes and realizes what his youngest son had done to him, the "his youngest son" could be referring to Ham's youngest son, rather than his own (Noah's youngest son-Ham) had done to him.

Noah, a man of the soil, began to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of the wine, he got drunk and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers who were outside. Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his (Ham's) youngest son had done to him.

So he said,
“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
he will be to his brothers.”

This would definitely explain why he curses Ham, and not Canaan--- AND it eliminates entirely the idea that Canaan was born nine months later as a result of the sexual relations some suggest.




Not anywhere, that I know of. Rather-- scripture is clear that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. We know this also not only because Cush is named as Ham's first/oldest son-- Cush is also the one that Ham gifts the stolen garment to. It ends up then being gifted to Cush's oldest son-- Nimrod, who becomes a great king by virtue of this special garment.

I think this is most solidly answer to the OP, so far.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Not on topic, but interesting just the same. I've studied genetics extensively for my own sake, but there is very strong blood evidence for an intermixing of types. The conversation gets uncomfortable quickly, but if you research human blood types, you'll very quickly run into something called the Rh blood factor.

Humans are either Rh Positive, or Rh Negative.

"Rhesus factor" named for the Rhesus monkey which also carries the gene, and is a protein that lives on the surface of our red blood cells.

The genetic evidence strongly suggests an interbreeding at some long distant past between species.

AI Generated Answer:

Humans and Rhesus Monkeys

The idea that humans interbred with rhesus monkeys is a misconception. This belief likely stems from a misunderstanding of the term "Rhesus factor" and the evolutionary relationship between humans and rhesus monkeys.

The Rhesus factor, or Rh factor, is a protein found on the surface of red blood cells. It was named after the Rhesus macaque monkey because it was first discovered in these animals, but this does not mean that humans inherited it directly from rhesus monkeys. In fact, the Rhesus factor is an ancient protein that has evolved in many different species, including humans, and has a common origin dating back to ancient life forms like Archaea.

The term "Rhesus factor" can lead to confusion because it suggests a direct link between humans and rhesus monkeys, but the reality is that both species share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. This common ancestor had the genetic basis for the Rhesus factor, which has been conserved and evolved differently in various species over time.

In summary, the belief that humans interbred with rhesus monkeys is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary and genetic relationships between species. The Rhesus factor is a shared trait due to a common evolutionary history, not a result of interbreeding.

 

[MrE]

The term "Rhesus factor" can lead to confusion because it suggests a direct link between humans and rhesus monkeys, but the reality is that both species share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.

To reject the idea that an interbreeding occurred is tantamount to accepting the idea that humans "came from" monkeys and that is why they have this common link.

At odds with Biblical Creation, Evolution supposes and teaches:

All living organisms have evolved from a common ancestor, meaning they share a common genetic heritage.

The closer the evolutionary relationship between two species, the more genes they will share.

 

[MrE]

Nice! This means I'm missing the monkey gene?

Only if you are Rh negative. And only if you are positive that you are negative.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

To reject the idea that an interbreeding occurred is tantamount to accepting the idea that humans "came from" monkeys and that is why they have this common link.

At odds with Biblical Creation, Evolution supposes and teaches:

All living organisms have evolved from a common ancestor, meaning they share a common genetic heritage.

The closer the evolutionary relationship between two species, the more genes they will share.

How can humans and rhesus monkeys interbreed??? Are you saying some humans had sex with rhesus monkeys????

That's crazy.

I'm not even subscribing to evolution. But what I think happened is God just used the same component in two of His creations without making any necessary link (so no evolution). Why do we have to put God in a box to define Him and what He did? Let Him do that Himself!

 

[MrE]

How can humans and rhesus monkeys interbreed??? Are you saying some humans had sex with rhesus monkeys????

That's crazy.

I'm not even subscribing to evolution. But what I think happened is God just used the same component in two of His creations without making any necessary link (so no evolution). Why do we have to put God in a box to define Him and what He did? Let Him do that Himself!

It's so controversial that only a few anthropologists will even touch it. So easy to be called a racist. Or crazy.

But here's the salient point.... if you believe we have all descended from one common ancestor, there would be no such thing as blood types. There would simply be blood. The blood types come from admixture.

Setting Biblical Creation aside for a moment, if mankind evolved from the same African ancestor their blood would be compatible, but it's not. Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive child reject her own offspring? Where did the Rh negatives come from?

And that's the "science" behind and between evolution and creation alike -- that we all had one common ancestor and we all came out of Africa, one way or the other. Except we didn't. And Rh Negative blood is the proof.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

It's so controversial that only a few anthropologists will even touch it. So easy to be called a racist. Or crazy.

But here's the salient point.... if you believe we have all descended from one common ancestor, there would be no such thing as blood types. There would simply be blood. The blood types come from admixture.

Setting Biblical Creation aside for a moment, if mankind evolved from the same African ancestor their blood would be compatible, but it's not. Why does the body of an Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive child reject her own offspring? Where did the Rh negatives come from?

I don't know and I don't care. I'm not listening to your freaky, perverted ideas.

 

[MrE]

I don't know and I don't care. I'm not listening to your freaky, perverted ideas.

Have a nice day-- but it's not my idea. Read Joshua Swamidiss' book- The Genalogical Adam and Eve, or spend a few minutes instead to listen to the world's most dangerous anthropologist-- Robert Sepehr.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

To reject the idea that an interbreeding occurred is tantamount to accepting the idea that humans "came from" monkeys and that is why they have this common link.

Surely a common creator makes more sense than parallel evolution or interbreeding with monkeys?

 

[MrE]

Surely a common creator makes more sense than parallel evolution or interbreeding with monkeys?

One does not negate the other.

The theory proposes a single pair with a common blood type, that then diverges across species.

 

[MrE]

I don't mean to derail the thread, so I will leave it with this. If anyone is interested in pursuing the theory and looking at genetic study, this is a good primer.

Rather than parallel evolution and Darwin's long-accepted 'Descent of Man' theory, genetic research is revealing new information that is changing these seldom-challenged narratives.