Some Great writers knew how to use a HOOK.

“Ham uncovered his fathers nakedness.” I have read things people have come up with to explain this scripture. Ham was one of the three sons of Noah. After the Great Flood, Noah grew grapes, made wine, and got drunk. That’s not to say Noah was an alcoholic. I think most of us would need a stiff drink after such a cruise. As a result of Ham uncovering Noah’s nakedness, Noah cursed Ham, and all his decedents. Seems harsh for just seeing the old guy naked. Noah lived another four hundred years after the flood, and had no other children? Here are a few of the comments from some who claim to be Christian;

“Ham was gay, and had sex with his father.” “Noah was shy because his gear was undersized.” Most of the comments, and there were many, suggested Ham did something sexual to his father. This thread is not to suggest the Flood story is true, or false, but to show most Christians (sic) have very little knowledge of how to read the Bible. Nor is it a brag on my part to show I know more than others. I learned many years ago, scriptures are like branches of a great tree, they shoot off in many different directions. Meaning, there is more than one truth to every scripture. I was surprised Noah had no other children after the flood? He lived for another four hundred yeas after the flood, planted a vineyard, and made wine. Not the everyday activity of an old man in a wheel chair. Why did he not have more children? Was he and his wife having marital problems? Something was going on. After the waters subsided, and the boat docked in La Pas, or wherever, there were only eight people. That is a small family. To curse one of your sons, and all of his decedents, would arouse a reaction from Hams wife…she would probably stand by her husband, and not talk to her father-in-law. Most know how that story goes…family members take sides. Who knows, maybe the whole family stopped talking to Noah. Maybe he was a butt head captain well on the cruise? Whatever took place with this nakedness thing, was either the reaction of a stupid man, or there was more to the story? Was Ham a flip flopper? Did he have sex with his drunk father, or just see him naked, and made a joke about his equipment? The answer is to be found, like all bible answers, in other scriptures. Here are two I found;

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

Lev 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.

“Ahha.” Ham had sex with his own mother! Now there is a different story church leaders don’t talk about. Why did Noah have no children after the flood? His wife cheated with one of her sons. Hams wife…how did she take this? I don’t know. I haven’t found a scripture yet that reviles that part of the drama. I’m sure it’s recorded someplace. The story gives a different picture of Noah’s wife. After the big family fight, did she continue having sex with her son? Hams wife, was she a part of a three some?

Why do church leaders not teach this? Well, they used to. Here is what resulted from the knowledge of Ham, and the curse Noah put on him:

Ham was of the dark skin. The three sons went to different parts of the world. Ham went to the land we now call Africa. The land of dark skinned people. During the slavery in the United States, it was believed dark skinned people were the cursed descendants of Ham, thus it was okay to enslave them. It makes one wonder, “Was the American Civil War about slavery, or religious beliefs? The Ham curse was a teaching even in the early nineteenth century. When America started to get publicly correct, this church teaching stopped, and was put aside. America was for all people, of all races. Just what did the curse mean? and how could a man, Noah, enforce the curse? The Bible shows a curse could only be in effect if God let it happen. Did the cures mean people of dark skin were bad, and that God did not love them? No, but that is a different story…one more interesting than the uncovering of Noah’s nakedness.

If the Bible is true, it is amazing how one event, in one family can effect all the peoples of the world…maybe it just goes to show how close all humans are bound together. Different countries, races, religions, and thinking…all from the same seed. Is the Bible a true story, or just fiction? Whatever it is, the Bible is still the best selling book of all times. I wonder why?


"This I know for sure..."It has some great stories...all the stuff publishers demand writers put into their work...stuff that makes for a New York best seller."

Good post, Dom.
It sounds much like a programmers flow chart.  You go to one point with a yes or no question.  If yes, you proceed on a particular course.  If no, you go in another direction.  Flow charting the Bible can be an interesting project.

Abe F. March wrote:

Good post, Dom.
It sounds much like a programmers flow chart.  You go to one point with a yes or no question.  If yes, you proceed on a particular course.  If no, you go in another direction.  Flow charting the Bible can be an interesting project.

Thanks Abe.
When I first started to learn how to write, I read this; "Take best sellers apart, and see how the author built the story." That prartice  carried over to my reading of the bible.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

When I first started to learn how to write, I read this; "Take best sellers apart, and see how the author built the story." That prartice  carried over to my reading of the bible.

A perfect explanation of the process of interpretation of a written work.  Every reader of the original will input her or his own perspective in such a process.  It cannot address the author's actual intent.


Concerning the drunkenness of Noah, the incest interpretation is one of several that have been around for a long time.  They all remains just that: an interpretation.  The Biblical portions of the story come from 4 different texts:J,E,D, &P, with the portion concerning Noah's drunkeness probably from the J or Yawist epic.  

It is helpful, when reading and interpreting, to have the whole passage:

Genesis 9.20-25:  "Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’"

To speculate on the meaning behind this or any passage is just that - speculation.

Notice that the text says "Cursed be Canaan," not Ham.  The notion that Ham's skin was dark is another speculation.  The Canaanites were a Semetic people.

To understand the specifics of the passage from Genesis, one would have to be familiar with the culture of the time it was created.  The Yawist epic was probably written around the 6th or 5th centuries BCE.  The dialect indicates that the author was from the Southern Kingdom.  These things need to be considered and studied to have any inkling of what the writer might have meant beyond what was specifically said.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

I was surprised Noah had no other children after the flood? He lived for another four hundred yeas after the flood, planted a vineyard, and made wine. Not the everyday activity of an old man in a wheel chair. Why did he not have more children? Was he and his wife having marital problems? Something was going on. 

The text is very brief.  Domenic's questions are not uncommon.  Different scholars and writers have come up with different answers.  Some of these quesions were asked by Darren Aronofsky, the director and co-screenwriter of the currently showing film.  Mr Aronofsky, who was fascinated by the story from his childhood, did a tremendous amount of research as an adult, over quite a few years, before putting all his years of work into the film.  Anyone who finds the story intriguing should see the film.  It is an awakening experience.

As to any historical facts, well, as we writers know, "hook" is a literary term, and writers of literature often use a certain amount of "poetic license."

There is a difference between "fact" and "truth."   Facts can distort.  Truth can be more profoundly expressed in fiction.

Just some things to think about.

alj wrote:

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

When I first started to learn how to write, I read this; "Take best sellers apart, and see how the author built the story." That prartice  carried over to my reading of the bible.

A perfect explanation of the process of interpretation of a written work.  Every reader of the original will input her or his own perspective in such a process.  It cannot address the author's actual intent.


Concerning the drunkenness of Noah, the incest interpretation is one of several that have been around for a long time.  They all remains just that: an interpretation.  The Biblical portions of the story come from 4 different texts:J,E,D, &P, with the portion concerning Noah's drunkeness probably from the J or Yawist epic.  

It is helpful, when reading and interpreting, to have the whole passage:

Genesis 9.20-25:  "Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’"

To speculate on the meaning behind this or any passage is just that - speculation.

Notice that the text says "Cursed be Canaan," not Ham.  The notion that Ham's skin was dark is another speculation.  The Canaanites were a Semetic people.

To understand the specifics of the passage from Genesis, one would have to be familiar with the culture of the time it was created.  The Yawist epic was probably written around the 6th or 5th centuries BCE.  The dialect indicates that the author was from the Southern Kingdom.  These things need to be considered and studied to have any inkling of what the writer might have meant beyond what was specifically said.

You are reading it wrong...
Read Genesis 9:22  Ham was the father of Canaan . It was Hams seed that is cursed, starting with Canaan. it was Ham who had sex with Noah's wife.( Hams mother.)

Here is the true story, or myth?

And Noah said ‘Cursed be Canaan! A slave of slaves, a slave to his brothers! Blessed be God, the God of Shem, but Canaan shall be his slave. God prosper Japheth…But Canaan shall be his slave’." (Genesis 9:25-27¹⁾

Who Did Noah Curse—Ham, Canaan or Cush?

Turning to Genesis 9, there’s an arresting asymmetry between Noah’s blessing and his curse; he blessed Shem and Japheth; he did not curse Ham. Rather, Noah pronounced a curse on Ham’s son, Canaan, saying, "Cursed be Canaan: A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers…Blessed be… Shem and let Canaan be his servant." Hence, strictly speaking, it is inaccurate to talk of "the curse of Ham." The "curse of Canaan" is the correct term. This is important because Ham had four sons: Cush is listed first and Canaan, last (Gen. 10:6.) Witness Lee points out that "Ham’s son was Cush, the forefather of Ethiopia." Scholars agree that "Cush" means "black." Hence many expositors concur with Witness Lee that "Ham…was the forefather of the black people," through his son, Cush.2 Yet, Ham was the forefather of other peoples also—through his other sons. So why focus attention exclusively upon only one lineage—Ham’s black descendents? Moreover, regardless of the ethnic origins or skin colors of the Cushites, the fact remains that no curse is pronounced on either Ham or Cush. The curse of servitude was pronounced on Caanan, another of Ham’s sons. The Bible states clearly that Noah cursed Ham’s fourth son, Canaan, not Ham’s first son, Cush (the black, "Ethiopian.") There is no Biblical justification for transposing Noah’s curse from one of Ham’s sons to the other.

The Old Testament indicates that Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan (Gen. 10:6). According to scholars,3 Cush, Ham’s oldest son represents the African tribes known as Ethiopians; Mizraim corresponds to Egypt; Put (or Phut) is linked by some to Somalia, by others to Libya. Lastly, Canaan4 "normally represents the land of Palestine and Phoenicia…the Old Testament… use[s] the term for inhabitants of the area in a general sense…These many tribes are in some way related to Canaan, and thus are called Canaanites." So "Ham is the ancestor of all these people from Phoenicia [through Palestine and Egypt] to Africa." It is an unjustified leap of logic to reassign Noah’s curse away from Canaan to Ham (his father) or Cush, his black "Ethiopian" brother. The notion that Ham himself was black, originated in later rabbinical folklore. It is without Scriptural foundation. Hence expositors conclude5 "The reputed curse of Ham is not on Ham, but on Canaan, one of Ham’s sons. This is not a racial but geographic referent. The Canaanites, typically associated with the region of the Levant (Palestine, Lebanon, etc) were later subjugated by the Hebrews when they left bondage in Egypt according to the Biblical narrative." Thus, these scholars conclude the object of Noah’s curse was not black people, but Canaan, the forefather of the Canaanites. Noah’s curse was fulfilled by the Hebrews’ subjugation of the Canaanites. Canaan became "a slaves of slaves," when the Canaanites [e.g. the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:21, 27)] served the ex-slaves from Egypt, the Children of Israel. Genesis provides no biblical support for the assertion that black people are under Noah’s curse.

The point of the story was..."HAM HAD SEX WITH HIS MOTHER."  I don't understand why you ALWAYS come into my post and try to side track a point I was making? You are welcome to comment, but please do not side track.

This is what comes from trying to literalize the symbol and read myth as historical fact.

The Canaanites were a semitic people, regardless of the belief that Canaan was a son of Ham. Ham's blackness has no basis in anything other than an excuse to claim that slavery of Africans was due to God's curse. (Even in Genesis, it was Noah's curse, not God's). It is certainly not scientifically logical.

The same holds for the extremely loose interpretation that Ham's wrongdoing was more than Genesis described. At that time, it was considered a sin for a man to look at another in the nude. Period. No need to embellish the story as written. According to Genesis, Noah was upset that Ham looked at him naked, then told his brothers about what he had seen. The brothers had the decency to cover the man. That was all. that was sufficient to exlain the story. No need to add anything to it. it is a symbol - a myth. it is not history.

It is interesting how your choices as to what you deem to be Biblical fact and what you choose to see as later adornment always seem to fit your own personal prejudices.

alj wrote:

This is what comes from trying to literalize the symbol and read myth as historical fact.

The Canaanites were a semitic people, regardless of the belief that Canaan was a son of Ham.  Ham's blackness has no basis in anything other than an excuse to claim that slavery of Africans was due to God's curse.  (Even in Genesis, it was Noah's curse, not God's).  It is certainly not scientifically logical.

The same holds for the extremely loose interpretation that Ham's wrongdoing was more than Genesis described.  At that time, it was considered a sin for a man to look at another in the nude.  Period.  No need to embellish the story as written.  According to Genesis, Noah was upset that Ham looked at him naked, then told his brothers about what he had seen.  The brothers had the decency to cover the man.  That was all.  that was sufficient to exlain the story.  No need to add anything to it.  it is a symbol - a myth.  it is not history.

It is interesting how your choices as to what you deem to be Biblical fact and what you choose to see as  later adornment always seem to fit your own personal prejudices.

alj, you always do crap like this. Did you not read the two scriptures I posted that show what the nakedness means?  I do not adorn things to fit myself. And I have no prejudice against any race.
The truth of your post on my threads is plain, and simple. You think your a smart ass. For that we do not like each other. I do not sling mud at you...I try to cross the street every time I see you... you make claim to be a great teacher who is smarter than the rest of us...You are not. You come across as some angry old lady who has been left alone...I will ask you one more time...STOP SIDE TRACKING MY THREADS. Go get a life, and stay away from me. I do not want to deal with you anymore. If you need attention, go out onto the street and start giving hell to strangers...I'm sure they will give you all the attention you need.

Leviticus is part of the Priestly material - the P source - in the Pentateuch. It was not written until several hundred years after the Yawist Epic - the J source - which includes the 9th chapter of Genesis's story of Noah's vinyard. This source, wherever it appears in those five books, was written during the Post-Exilic period while the Hebrews were in exile to reinforce the idea that God was still with His people. It frequently contradicts passages from the three earlier sources (J, E, and D). It cannot be used as a valid source to elaborate on the vinyard piece from the J source.

alj wrote:

Leviticus is part of the Priestly material - the P source - in the Pentateuch.  It was not written until several hundred years after the Yawist Epic - the J source - which includes the 9th chapter of Genesis's story of Noah's vinyard.  This source, wherever it appears in those five books, was written during the Post-Exilic period while the Hebrews were in exile to reinforce the idea that God was still with His people.  It frequently contradicts passages from the three earlier sources (J, E, and D).  It cannot be used as a valid source to elaborate on the vinyard piece from the J source.

That is a cut & paste…back it up with proof.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

alj wrote:

Leviticus is part of the Priestly material - the P source - in the Pentateuch.  It was not written until several hundred years after the Yawist Epic - the J source - which includes the 9th chapter of Genesis's story of Noah's vinyard.  This source, wherever it appears in those five books, was written during the Post-Exilic period while the Hebrews were in exile to reinforce the idea that God was still with His people.  It frequently contradicts passages from the three earlier sources (J, E, and D).  It cannot be used as a valid source to elaborate on the vinyard piece from the J source.

That is a cut & paste…back it up with proof.

Those are my words, nothing cut or pasted, from my own background knowledge of a subject I've studied for years, in college classrooms as well as from my own research.

alj wrote:

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

alj wrote:

Leviticus is part of the Priestly material - the P source - in the Pentateuch.  It was not written until several hundred years after the Yawist Epic - the J source - which includes the 9th chapter of Genesis's story of Noah's vinyard.  This source, wherever it appears in those five books, was written during the Post-Exilic period while the Hebrews were in exile to reinforce the idea that God was still with His people.  It frequently contradicts passages from the three earlier sources (J, E, and D).  It cannot be used as a valid source to elaborate on the vinyard piece from the J source.

That is a cut & paste…back it up with proof.

Those are my words, nothing cut or pasted, from my own background knowledge of a subject I've studied for years, in college classrooms as well as from my own research.

That is all well, and fine, but can you prove your statements?  Such as;
"written during the Post-Exilic period while the Hebrews were in exile to reinforce the idea that God was still with His people."
How do you know their reason for writing what they did? Did they leave you a note in one of the scrolls, "alj, we wrote this for this reason." or, was that one of the things a teacher told you, but never proved what he/she was saying?
I'm sure if you say WHY they wrote what they did, there must be some writing to back that up? or, again, is it just something out of your own head?
After all, if you expect people to believe things you say, you should be able to back them up with some kind of proof? If you don't, some ass hole like me will think you are just making things up to look smarter than you are.

A-holes are like that.

You should go back to school, and learn how to deal with people. This is not a class room were you can bully kids. Like I have said in the past...you are nothing but an angry old lady on her computer trying to bully people, and who wants people she don't even know to look to her like she is some smart brain from planet XX. You need to grow up. You are nothing but a cyber bull. I hope you don't own a gun, and want to pay the world back for all the hurt they gave you. You are a big red flag...