Why was Canaan cursed?

[GreenEyedLady]

Genisis 9:19-29
Genesis 9:19-29 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 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. 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. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Why was Canaan cursed before he was born?

GEL

[ZiSunka]

His father's wickedness in looking at his own father's naked body and trying to get his brothers to look, too. Noah was hurt and angry about what Ham had done, and like any human acting in the heat of emotions, he lashed out in the most vicious way, to curse Ham's son rather than Ham himself because he knew that would hurt Ham more.

Noah was not a sinless person and his anger caused him to do a mean and hurtful thing to an innocent child.

[Matthan]

I guess so.....

[Lockheed]

Noah was not a sinless person and his anger caused him to do a mean and hurtful thing to an innocent child.

If the child was 'innocent', why did God abide by Noah's curse? Though it was only Noah's words, Scripture seems to indicate that God did exactly as Noah said.

Is it not also true of God that He visited "the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations" and yet remains loving, compassionate and gracious?

Perhaps Ham's sin was another example of Adam's sin, and thus Cain's as well? Thus, even through the flood God saved Noah, yet sin remained in mankind just as there are now tares among the wheat.

Perhaps this is all somehow tied to the fact that our natural father, Adam sinned and thus we are all cursed with him since "through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners"?

[GreenEyedLady]

Lamb, I thought that too, but let me share with you what I learned.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Look at how scripture intreprets itself.....

Leviticus 20:11 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 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

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

So the father nakedness(Noah) is the fathers(Noah's) wife. So the reason why Canaan was cursed is because Canaan was the by product of the sin(Ham and Mrs.Noah knowing each other) of Ham. Canaan was the son of Noah's wife. The first incest. Ewwwwww.
I never saw this verse this way until I studied out "fathers nakedness."

Does anyone have a differant answer?

GEL

[Gold Dragon]

Lamb, I thought that too, but let me share with you what I learned.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Look at how scripture intreprets itself.....

Leviticus 20:11 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 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

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

So the father nakedness(Noah) is the fathers(Noah's) wife. So the reason why Canaan was cursed is because Canaan was the by product of the sin(Ham and Mrs.Noah knowing each other) of Ham. Canaan was the son of Noah's wife. The first incest. Ewwwwww.
I never saw this verse this way until I studied out "fathers nakedness."

Does anyone have a differant answer?

GEL

While "uncovering of nakedness" is a euphemism for sexual relations in old testament times (Leviticus 18), nakedness also means dishonour, which I believe is the context this phrase is used in the case of Ham and Noah and not the sexual meaning.

A dynamic equivalence translation like the NIV does a good job of distinguishing the difference in meaning of these similar sounding phrases.

KJV - Leviticus 18:7-8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Leviticus+18&section=0&translation=kjv&oq=le%252018&new=1&nb=le&ng=18&ncc=18)

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

NIV - Leviticus 18:7-8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Leviticus+18&section=0&translation=niv&oq=Leviticus%252018&new=1&nb=le&ng=18&ncc=18)

Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

[GreenEyedLady]

While "uncovering of nakedness" is a euphemism for sexual relations in old testament times (Leviticus 18), nakedness also means dishonour, which I believe is the context this phrase is used in the case of Ham and Noah and not the sexual meaning.

A dynamic equivalence translation like the NIV does a good job of distinguishing the difference in meaning of these similar sounding phrases.

What does the NIV say if it does not say..........having sexual relations with Noahs wife? That is what is dishonoring to the father, having the sexual realations. Seems that you have proved my point even more.

GEL

[Gold Dragon]

What does the NIV say if it does not say..........having sexual relations with Noahs wife? That is what is dishonoring to the father, having the sexual realations. Seems that you have proved my point even more.

GEL

Ummm. Ok.

Maybe I'll explain it in different terms.

The term "nakedness" in the Hebrew ערוה (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06172) always means shame or dishonour. When combined with "uncovering" (גּלה (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01540)), we have a euphemism for sexual relations in certain contexts. However, I believe the context which those words are used in the Ham/Noah episode are not indicative of the sexual euphemism but the more general usage of shame and dishonour.

[Fat]

A cut and paste that might help change the direction of this thread. :)



The drunkenness of Noah is recorded in the Bible, with that fairness which is found only in the Scripture, as a case and proof of human weakness and imperfection, even though he may have been surprised into the sin; and to show that the best of men cannot stand upright, unless they depend upon Divine grace, and are upheld thereby. Ham appears to have been a bad man, and probably rejoiced to find his father in an unbecoming situation. It was said of Noah, that he was perfect in his generations, ch. 6:9; but this is meant of sincerity, not of a sinless perfection. Noah, who had kept sober in drunken company, is now drunk in sober company. Let him that thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall. We have need to be very careful when we use God's good creatures plentifully, lest we use them to excess, Lu 21:34. The consequence of Noah's sin was shame. Observe here the great evil of the sin of drunkenness. It discovers men; what infirmities they have, they betray when they are drunk; and secrets are then easily got out of them. Drunken porters keep open gates. It disgraces men, and exposes them to contempt. As it shows them, so it shames them. Men say and do that when drunken, which, when sober, they would blush to think of. Notice the care of Shem and Japheth to cover their father's shame. There is a mantle of love to be thrown over the faults of all, ( 1 Peter 4:8 ) thrown over the faults of parents and other superiors. The blessing of God attends on those who honour their parents, and his curse lights especially on those who dishonour them.

[GreenEyedLady]

Ummm. Ok.

Maybe I'll explain it in different terms.

The term "nakedness" in the Hebrew ערוה (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06172) always means shame or dishonour. When combined with "uncovering" (גּלה (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01540)), we have a euphemism for sexual relations in certain contexts. However, I believe the context which those words are used in the Ham/Noah episode are not indicative of the sexual euphemism but the more general usage of shame and dishonour.


GD,
This give no evidence to why Canaan was cursed. WHY, just because Ham dishonored Noah? HOW did Ham dishonor Noah? That is the question....:scratch:
GEL

[Iollain]

HOw old was Ham at the time this happened, it is very dishonourable to find your dad passed out drunk and naked and make any fun of him, and try to get others to look, imo
Where it says 'uncovered his nakedness' do ya's suppose he took the clothes right off of Noah and made fun of his body?

[ZiSunka]

What does the NIV say if it does not say..........having sexual relations with Noahs wife? That is what is dishonoring to the father, having the sexual realations. Seems that you have proved my point even more.

GEL

That's pretty far-fetched. Noah's wife isn't even mentioned in this passage, and the other sons clearly went into the tent to cover up their father's nakedness, not their mother's. It isn't even mentioned that mother is naked. Noah got drunk and left himself exposed inside his tent. His son Ham went into the tent, got a look at their father in his drunken and naked state and went to get his brothers so they could ridicule their father in his vulnerable state, too. The other sons knew it was disrespectful and chose to cover him up without looking at him instead. Ham's sin wasn't having sex with his mother, it was ridiculing his father in a vulnerable state and wanting his brothers to do it, too.

Noah had just come through the most stressful situation possible, at the other end he discovers that every human being except his own family has been killed by God's wrath, that every animal except those on his ark have also perished due to God's wrath at man, and Noah feels--what? Maybe he doesn't even know. Fear, sorrow, emotional pain, doubt. So he gets drunk. It's a human reaction to lessor stresses. His son, instead of respecting his father and feeling some of what Noah is feeling, doesn't grasp the seriousness of the situation on earth and chooses to go look at his father in a reduced state and ridicule him while he is asleep.

So when Noah wakes up, he realizes that someone came in and covered him up. He's angry that his boys didn't understand what's going on and be kind to him instead of mean. He finds out it is Ham and curses not him, but his son, the same relationship he has with Ham. My mom always used to tell my sister that she hoped Kathy would have a child as difficult to raise as she was so that Kathy could come to understand why my mom did the things she did while Kathy was growing up.

God didn't curse Ham or Canaan, Noah did. We have the power of blessing or cursing, the book of James says so. God didn't have to curse Canaan for it to be effective. That's why when you hear people take the words, (using God's name in vain) lightly they don't understand what they are doing.

Noah cursed Canaan as a punishment for Ham's sin, and so Ham would come to identify with Noah's feelings.

[ZiSunka]

GD,
This give no evidence to why Canaan was cursed. WHY, just because Ham dishonored Noah? HOW did Ham dishonor Noah? That is the question....:scratch:
GEL

He saw him naked and drunk, that's how. Ham is never going to be able to respect his dad after seeing that. "Honor your mother and father" is one of the ten commandments, and yes, those hadn't been handed down yet at this time, but it's a timeless principle, that you honor and respect those people who brought you into the world and/or raised you. You owe everything to them, your very existence. If you see them drunk, passed out, naked, you will never be able to honor them the right way again unless you repent and let God start to heal. Ham didn't beg Noah's forgiveness, he went and got his brothers so they could lose respect for Noah, too.

[Gold Dragon]

GD,
This give no evidence to why Canaan was cursed. WHY, just because Ham dishonored Noah? HOW did Ham dishonor Noah? That is the question....:scratch:
GEL

Noah didn't just curse Canaan because of Ham, but blessed Shem and Japeth. This whole blessing and cursing happened right after this episode with Noah's nakedness so it can easily be deduced that their actions in that episode either resulted in a blessing or a curse.

So the "plain" interpretation would be that Shem and Japeth covered their father's nakedness without looking at him, while Ham looked and did nothing about it but instead told his brothers. Noah blessed the older brothers for their honourable treatment of him in an embarassing situation and cursed Ham and his son Canaan for Ham's dishonourable treatment of the situation.

The fact that uncovering of nakedness is also a euphemism for sexual relations in other contexts, does not mean that this episode was one that involved sexual relations.

[ZiSunka]

What does the NIV say if it does not say..........having sexual relations with Noahs wife? That is what is dishonoring to the father, having the sexual realations. Seems that you have proved my point even more.

GEL

You're looking at this from a 21st century, post sexual revolution position, where women go half naked to the grocery store (I actually saw a woman and her daughter walking around Krogers in bikinis, no coverups, without looking like they were the least bit embarassed). Now, even having sex in public is something laughed at in sitcoms. All the state beaches in Ohio now allow total nudity, too.

But in all previous times, it was shameful to be naked in public. Nakedness was shameful even if you weren't having sex at the time.

[Gold Dragon]

HOw old was Ham at the time this happened, it is very dishonourable to find your dad passed out drunk and naked and make any fun of him, and try to get others to look, imo

The bible says that Noah was around 500 when he had his kids, Japeth, Shem and Ham. (He sure took his time ;) )

KJV - Genesis 5:32 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+6&section=0&translation=kjv&oq=Genesis%25206&new=1&nb=ge&npc=%A0%3C%3C%A0&ng=6&ncc=6)

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

They got in the ark when Noah was around 600.

KJV - Genesis 7:11 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+8&section=0&translation=kjv&oq=ge%25208&new=1&nb=ge&npc=%A0%3C%3C%A0&ng=8&ncc=8)

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


So assuming Ham was born near Noah's early 500s, he was about 100.

Where it says 'uncovered his nakedness' do ya's suppose he took the clothes right off of Noah and made fun of his body.

I think the simplest assumption is that in Noah's drunkeness, he took off his clothes to go to bed but didn't put his PJs on. :)

[ZiSunka]

Ham, father of Canaan, saw his father naked. So he went outside and told his two brothers.

Ham didn't take off his father's clothes, he found his father already naked.

23 Shem and Japheth took a blanket and laid it over their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered their father's naked body. They turned their faces away so that they didn't see their father naked.

The other two boys refused to disrespect their father, instead they respected him enough to cover him so Ham couldn't go in again and look at their father's nakedness. Clearly there is no sexual intent here. The boys covered their father in such a way as to protect his modesty by walking backwards into the tent so they wouldn't even see his body. If just looking at nakedness was okay they would have just walked in and covered him up. If Ham had done something sexual with their mother, they would have covered her up. I just don't see any sex in this passage at all.

24 When Noah sobered up, he found out what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, "Canaan is cursed! He will be the lowest slave to his brothers. 26 Praise the LORD, the God of Shem! Canaan will be his slave. 27 May God expand the territory of Japheth. May he live in the tents of Shem. Canaan will be his slave."

I don't see any evidence that God cursed Canaan. Noah did all the cursing.

[GreenEyedLady]

I still do not see how you all can use the phrase, uncovered the fathers nakedness, as an unterpretation of being naked. Scripture points out in more passages that I listed.

Leviticus chapters 18 and chapter 20.
Then there is this one, which I have not mentioned.........


Deuteronomy 27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Scripture reveals itself again.

I wanted to point out that Canaan was not even born yet. He is not even mentioned in the geneology until the next chapter.
Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
But Noah knew his name, knew he would be born and cursed him. According to scripture, the curse is because Ham laid with Noahs wife and the other 2 brothers, having the oppurtunity, walked away closing thier eyes, which is why they recieved the blessing.

GEL

[Gold Dragon]

I guess you've already made up your mind about this.

I wanted to point out that Canaan was not even born yet. He is not even mentioned in the geneology until the next chapter.
Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
But Noah knew his name, knew he would be born and cursed him.

You may be right that Canaan was not born yet. But his name being mentioned two times in that chapter before the curse and Ham "seeing" the nakedness of his father would suggest otherwise.

KJV - Gen 9:18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Canaan&section=0&translation=nas&oq=&sr=1)

Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan.

KJV - Gen 9:22 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Canaan&section=0&translation=nas&oq=&sr=1)

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.

According to scripture, the curse is because Ham laid with Noahs wife and the other 2 brothers, having the oppurtunity, walked away closing thier eyes, which is why they recieved the blessing.

That is a creative interpretation that is unfortunately unsupported by a plain reading of the text.

[GreenEyedLady]

That is a creative interpretation that is unfortunately unsupported by a plain reading of the text.

Exept for the support of Leviticus and Dueteronmy which does support it!
;) :P

[Gold Dragon]

Exept for the support of Leviticus and Dueteronmy which does support it!
;) :P

I haven't read Leviticus and Deuteronomy in a while, but it would be enlightening to read the parts where it re-tells the story of Noah by explaining that Ham really slept with Noah's wife. ;)

Both books do not mention Noah's name, Ham's name or Canaan's name except in reference to the land of Canaan.

[ZiSunka]

I still do not see how you all can use the phrase, uncovered the fathers nakedness, as an unterpretation of being naked. Scripture points out in more passages that I listed.

GEL

Because it's NOT in the text of this story.

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." KJV

You keep saying that he uncovered his father's nakedness, but it's just not in there GEL. He saw his father's nakedness, but he didn't uncover it.

Why are you trying to put something in there that God didn't intend??

He didn't rape his father's wife, he just saw his father without clothes. There's a BIG difference!

[Gold Dragon]

Hi GEL, here is a parallel example for comparison.

Another euphemism for sex in Genesis is to "know".

KJV - Gen 4:1 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+4:1&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en)

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

KJV - Gen 4:17 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+4:17&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en)

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

KJV - Gen 4:25 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+4:25&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en)

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

The same Hebrew word was used in this passage.

KJV - Gen 42:8 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+42:8&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en)

And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.

Interpreting this as saying that Joseph had sex with his brothers based on those earlier uses of the word in Genesis would be a gross misinterpretation taking the word completely out of its context.

That is what is being done when one interprets that Ham's sin was sleeping with Noah's wife because the words uncover and nakedness appear in both the Noah story and the Levitical sexual laws.

How do we know that one usage of "knew" is about sex and another is just about knowing? We need to look at the context the word is found in. How do we know that one usage of "nakedness" is about sex and another is just about nakedness? We need to look at the context the word is found in.

[GreenEyedLady]

ok, I just do not feel like anyone here understands me.
I give up.

GEL

[ZiSunka]

GEL, we understand where you are coming from, and you are right, "uncovering someone's nakedness" does mean having sex with them, but in this passage, Ham didn't uncover his father's nakedness (meaning by having sex with his wife), he was already uncovered when Ham saw him, Noah had taken off his own clothing out of drunkeness. This is a literal nakedness, not a euphemism for sex.

[Lockheed]

I don't see any evidence that God cursed Canaan. Noah did all the cursing.
Lambslove,

Did or did not God abide by Noah's curse of Canaan? If Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" as Peter calls him, could this have been a prophetic word to Ham of God's judgment?

[ZiSunka]

Lambslove,

Did or did not God abide by Noah's curse of Canaan? If Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" as Peter calls him, could this have been a prophetic word to Ham of God's judgment?

Since when does God have to abide by our curses? We can certainly curse without God agreeing with it.

Or do you really think that every time someone says, (using God's name in vain) God really (curses) the person?

[Lockheed]

I'm asking, did God do what Noah warned would occur? Since only God has the power to do what Noah's cursed stated. Did Noah's curse come true?

[ZiSunka]

I'm asking, did God do what Noah warned would occur? Since only God has the power to do what Noah's cursed stated. Did Noah's curse come true?

You don't think humans can curse each other, that misery can only come through the consent of the Lord?

Besides, I can't find one reference where it says the curse did come true.

[Lockheed]

You don't think humans can curse each other, that misery can only come through the consent of the Lord?

No, its not that... it's that Canaan was cursed by Noah before he had anything to do with it. It wasn't Noah who made the curse come to pass, was it?

Besides, I can't find one reference where it says the curse did come true.

Is it your position then that Noah was acting sinfully in cursing Canaan?

Canaan's offspring were living in the land named for him when the people of Israel came there. When God gave the land of Canaan to the offspring of his uncles (Shem and Japeth), was this not a fulfillment of Noah's curse?

Do you believe that this is just coincidence?

[ZiSunka]

No, its not that... it's that Canaan was cursed by Noah before he had anything to do with it. It wasn't Noah who made the curse come to pass, was it?

Don't you think most curses are self-fulfilling? The person knows they've been cursed and they act like they are cursed?

Is it your position then that Noah was acting sinfully in cursing Canaan?

Sinfully? I don't know. Rashly? Definitely.

Canaan's offspring were living in the land named for him when the people of Israel came there. When God gave the land of Canaan to the offspring of his uncles (Shem and Japeth), was this not a fulfillment of Noah's curse?

Noah's curse was on Canaan, not all the offspring of Canaan. What happened 20 generations later was God providing for His people the Hebrews, not the result of Noah's curse.

[Gold Dragon]

Noah's curse was on Canaan, not all the offspring of Canaan. What happened 20 generations later was God providing for His people the Hebrews, not the result of Noah's curse.

I don't think we can look to the curse as any sort of rule and the generational aspect of the curse may not have been explicit (other than Canaan being one generation after Ham), but I do believe there is some relationship between God giving the Israelites the land of Canaan and Noah's curse. How that relationship works is purely speculation.

Something else to keep in mind if we attribute the authorship of Genesis to Moses during the desert wanderings, is that the Israelites already knew that their promised land was that of the Canaanites from Abraham's day. So emphasizing Canaan's role in this story is pretty important to the Israelites at that time.

[ZiSunka]

I don't think we can look to the curse as any sort of rule and the generational aspect of the curse may not have been explicit (other than Canaan being one generation after Ham), but I do believe there is some relationship between God giving the Israelites the land of Canaan and Noah's curse. How that relationship works is purely speculation.

I've always thought that when a curse was multigenerational, it would say something like, "and to all/many (or name a number here) generations the same."

[Gold Dragon]

I've always thought that when a curse was multigenerational, it would say something like, "and to all/many (or name a number here) generations the same."

Yes, Noah's curse wasn't explicitly multigenerational.

[ZiSunka]

Yes, Noah's curse wasn't explicitly multigenerational.

And the Canaanites weren't really the servants of Israel, and Noah's curse said that Canaan would serve Shem and Japheth, and the Israelites were only the decendants of one of them, not both. So, for this curse to be understood to have come true in the invasion of Canaan by Israel, you have to do a lot of assuming and adjusting. You have to assume it was a multigenerational curse, even though it doesn't follow the pattern of mulitgenerational curses, and you have to make allowances for the fact that the Israelites were the descendents of Shem but not Japheth. Also, the Canaanites didn't become the slaves or servants of the Hebrew, they just continued to live in the land God gave them and be a thorn in their side. I think that's too much of a stretch to be reasonable, so I just don't see how we are supposed to believe this curse ever came to pass.

[Gold Dragon]

And the Canaanites weren't really the servants of Israel, and Noah's curse said that Canaan would serve Shem and Japheth, and the Israelites were only the decendants of one of them, not both. So, for this curse to be understood to have come true in the invasion of Canaan by Israel, you have to do a lot of assuming and adjusting. You have to assume it was a multigenerational curse, even though it doesn't follow the pattern of mulitgenerational curses, and you have to make allowances for the fact that the Israelites were the descendents of Shem but not Japheth. Also, the Canaanites didn't become the slaves or servants of the Hebrew, they just continued to live in the land God gave them and be a thorn in their side. I think that's too much of a stretch to be reasonable, so I just don't see how we are supposed to believe this curse ever came to pass.

Just an fyi that I have not assumed that this curse is multi-generational nor have I assumed that Israel's conquest of Canaan was a fulfillment of Noah's curse.

I simply suggested a relationship between the two events, probably having something to do with the Canaanites being Israel's enemy at the time of the writing.

[ZiSunka]

I understood that, GD. I just appreciate being able to discuss this with you in depth. Whenever something challenges my thinking like this, I like to explore what the Bible really says and how that is different (if at all) from what I or other people think it says.

My last post was more "thinking out loud" than it was anything else. I just wanted to bounce my ideas off you, because I know you are a logical thinker of faith.

[Gold Dragon]

I understood that, GD. I just appreciate being able to discuss this with you in depth. Whenever something challenges my thinking like this, I like to explore what the Bible really says and how that is different (if at all) from what I or other people think it says.

My last post was more "thinking out loud" than it was anything else. I just wanted to bounce my ideas off you, because I know you are a logical thinker of faith.

Phew. :)

Fair enough. I think in defense of those who support the idea that conquering the land of Canaan was a fulfillment of Noah's curse, it could be considered that:

1) The Genesis narrative doesn't explicitly tell us if Noah's curse came to fulfillment in the lifetimes of Ham, Canaan, Shem and Japeth or how it was fulfilled if it did.

2) Israel conquering Canaan may have been part of the fulfillment. Japeth's share of having Canaan as a servant may have happened in a different time or a different group of Canaan's descendents.

3) I believe some Canaanites did become slaves of Israelites. There are many Levitical laws regarding the treatment of gentile slaves. Most were likely Canaanites.

Yes assumptions are needed but they are not unreasonable assumptions.

[ZiSunka]

Phew. :)

Fair enough. I think in defense of those who support the idea that conquering the land of Canaan was a fulfillment of Noah's curse, it could be considered that:

1) The Genesis narrative doesn't explicitly tell us if Noah's curse came to fulfillment in the lifetimes of Ham, Canaan, Shem and Japeth or how it was fulfilled if it did.

2) Israel conquering Canaan may have been part of the fulfillment. Japeth's share of having Canaan as a servant may have happened in a different time or a different group of Canaan's descendents.

3) I believe some Canaanites did become slaves of Israelites. There are many Levitical laws regarding the treatment of gentile slaves. Most were likely Canaanites.

Yes assumptions are needed but they are not unreasonable assumptions.

I see what you are saying. It's not very cause-and-effect, though. It starts from the assumption that the curse was fulfilled by Israel's occupation of the land, but if you look at it as beinh an historical account of God's fulfillment of His promise to Abraham, it takes on a different tone. God made a promise to Abraham that his descendents would own Canaan as a reward for his faith in God. Abraham believed God and it came true that his descendents many generations down the line did (and do) own Canaan.

So the question is, does Israel own Canaan because of Noah's curse, or because of God's promise? You really have to make a lot of assumptions and allowances to make it fit Noah's curse, but you can see in plain black-and-white that it fulfills God's promise.

So, I doubt Noah's curse is the reason that Canaan became the property of the Hebrews, and I'm sure that Canaan became their property because of God's promise to Abraham.

[Gold Dragon]

I see what you are saying. It's not very cause-and-effect, though. It starts from the assumption that the curse was fulfilled by Israel's occupation of the land, but if you look at it as beinh an historical account of God's fulfillment of His promise to Abraham, it takes on a different tone. God made a promise to Abraham that his descendents would own Canaan as a reward for his faith in God. Abraham believed God and it came true that his descendents many generations down the line did (and do) own Canaan.

So the question is, does Israel own Canaan because of Noah's curse, or because of God's promise? You really have to make a lot of assumptions and allowances to make it fit Noah's curse, but you can see in plain black-and-white that it fulfills God's promise.

So, I doubt Noah's curse is the reason that Canaan became the property of the Hebrews, and I'm sure that Canaan became their property because of God's promise to Abraham.

Great points. I agree that God's promise to Abraham is the direct reason that the land of Canaan was conquered by Israel. However, I also am open to the possiblity that the choice of which land may have been related to Noah's curse, or that Noah's curse was prophetic of God's promise to Abraham.

I especially like your overall gist that, like the Jewish people, it is God's faithfulness to his promises that we should focus on.

We like to see events as cause-and-effect. That things work in linear fashion. This is understandable for the time-bound creatures that we are where time only has one direction. But for God who is not bound by time, the relationships of events may be more complicated.

[ZiSunka]

If the Canaanites were the only peoples living in the land at the time of Israel's entry into it, then I would agree that there is a probabilty that the curse had some impact on the choice of the land, but there were many people living there, and God said that all the people were wicked, not just the Canaanites, and that's why he wanted them out of his holy land. If it were just that he wanted to honor Noah's curse, God could have done that quickly for a bigger impact--do evil and pay the price. But because it was so many generations away, and plenty of time for people to dream up their own wickedness, and there is a pattern of God's blessings lasting from generation to generation but not his curses (just do a search of the term "all generations" and see--all blessings, no curses), if God was using Israel to punish the inhabitants of that land, it was for their own wickedness, not because of Noah's curse.

[Lockheed]

If the Canaanites were the only peoples living in the land at the time of Israel's entry into it, then I would agree that there is a probabilty that the curse had some impact on the choice of the land, but there were many people living there,

If you'll notice, the people living in the land of Canaan were all offspring of Ham.

...and God said that all the people were wicked, not just the Canaanites, and that's why he wanted them out of his holy land. If it were just that he wanted to honor Noah's curse, God could have done that quickly for a bigger impact--do evil and pay the price. But because it was so many generations away, and plenty of time for people to dream up their own wickedness, and there is a pattern of God's blessings lasting from generation to generation but not his curses (just do a search of the term "all generations" and see--all blessings, no curses), if God was using Israel to punish the inhabitants of that land, it was for their own wickedness, not because of Noah's curse.

All of the people on the earth were decendents of Ham, Shem or Japeth. Thus, those living in Canaan were whose offspring?

[Lockheed]

Great points. I agree that God's promise to Abraham is the direct reason that the land of Canaan was conquered by Israel. However, I also am open to the possiblity that the choice of which land may have been related to Noah's curse, or that Noah's curse was prophetic of God's promise to Abraham.

I especially like your overall gist that, like the Jewish people, it is God's faithfulness to his promises that we should focus on.

We like to see events as cause-and-effect. That things work in linear fashion. This is understandable for the time-bound creatures that we are where time only has one direction. But for God who is not bound by time, the relationships of events may be more complicated.

In the ultimate end of things... the reason Canaan became the slaves of the others was because... God was gracious to Israel and not Canaan. In the end, all of us are equally guilty and deserving of wrath being justified as a gift of God.

[ZiSunka]

If you'll notice, the people living in the land of Canaan were all offspring of Ham.


But not all Ham's children were cursed, only Canaan.



All of the people on the earth were decendents of Ham, Shem or Japeth. Thus, those living in Canaan were whose offspring?

Again, not all of Ham's children were cursed, so how does that make all the inhabitants cursed just because they were Ham's descendents?

[Lockheed]

But not all Ham's children were cursed, only Canaan.

But all of Canaan's offspring were... ie: "let him dwell in the tents of Shem". Thus it was the land of Canaan that God gave to Israel and the Canaanites who were their servants, as Joshua noted.

Again, not all of Ham's children were cursed, so how does that make all the inhabitants cursed just because they were Ham's descendents?

It doesn't for the land of Ham's other offspring was not given to Israel. For example, Cush became the father of the Cushites, who lived in the Nile river region.

It was Canaan who was cursed, and it was Canaan who God delivered to Israel.

[ZiSunka]

But all of Canaan's offspring were... ie: "let him dwell in the tents of Shem". Thus it was the land of Canaan that God gave to Israel and the Canaanites who were their servants, as Joshua noted.

It's just not in the Bible. I mean, that may be something you are thinking, that all of Canaan's descendents were cursed, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to directly or indirectly support that idea.



It doesn't for the land of Ham's other offspring was not given to Israel. For example, Cush became the father of the Cushites, who lived in the Nile river region.

It was Canaan who was cursed, and it was Canaan who God delivered to Israel.

Along with a dozen unrelated but equally wicked people groups. Canaan the individual was cursed by Noah, but there just isn't any Biblical evidence that isn't full of assumptions like swiss cheese is full of holes that the entire lineage of Canaan was cursed. You want this to be true, so you are filling in some pretty big gaps with your own ideas.

It is directly evident that God gave Israel the land because of his promise to Abraham, and this side idea that He gave it to fulfill Noah's curse just doesn't make the cut. It's like putting a bb in a tuna can and saying it's an exact fit. Too much empty space in and around your hypothesis, too many blank spaces that have to be filled with assumptions and allowances.

As for why did God give Israel Canaan, I would guess that it has something to do with the holiness of the area, something that made three world religions spring up in it and cover the earth, more or less. It might be better to try to understand why Canaan based on that than trying to make Noah's curse explain it.

[Lockheed]

Along with a dozen unrelated but equally wicked people groups.

That's the point, I think... they WERE related! Everyone on the Earth are the offspring of Noah's family. The Canaanites were aptly named, the offspring of Canaan. As for Biblical support, I and other have documented the related verses. Therefore you cannot claim I have none, I've provided it. You might not agree with it, and that's your right, but please don't say I didn't document it.

Anyway... have a great weekend.

[ZiSunka]

Not everyone in Canaan at the time was a Canaanite. You do realize that, right? There were other people groups who occupied the land even at the time of Abraham, and still at the time of Joshua and Caleb.

Your verses proved absolutely nothing except in your own mind, and because you want them to prove it so you've convinced yourself that they do.

You have decided that the world is the way you see and so you see it no other way!

[Lockheed]

Not everyone in Canaan at the time was a Canaanite. You do realize that, right? There were other people groups who occupied the land even at the time of Abraham, and still at the time of Joshua and Caleb.

Yes, but I'm not saying that they were included in the curse, however, the Canaanites (offspring of Canaan) were and thus we see the curse fulfilled in the fact that their land was given, literally, to their 'brothers' and they were servants of them.

Your verses proved absolutely nothing except in your own mind, and because you want them to prove it so you've convinced yourself that they do.

Yeowch! It is fine for you to disagree with me, even strongly, yet recall that it was your initial position that:

"Noah was not a sinless person and his anger caused him to do a mean and hurtful thing to an innocent child."

I wonder if this is still your belief? Do you believe that in cursing Canaan, Noah sinned?

[Smidlee]

Genesis 9:24 " And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him"
sounds like there more to it than just Ham looking on his nakedness. Obviously there no need to go into details.
Genesis 9:25 " and he said, Cursed be Canaan;..." This was definitely a prophecy made by Noah. Just like Jacab made about the 12 tribes. Canaan was probably already born since scriptures doesn't always follow a particular order of time. Genesis seems to go back and forward in time in few other places.