Are these scriptures in contradictions?

Question

One of the sites on contradictions in the bible stated that these two verses were contradicting each other.

I say Noel cursed his son, and God said something else. Is this really a contradition please explain.

Genesis 9:21-25
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father .... And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan [Ham's son]; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Answer 1

No....

Following the incident regarding Noah’s drunkenness, Canaan came under Noah’s prophetic curse foretelling that Canaan would become the slave of both Shem and Japheth. (Genesis 9:20-27) Since the record mentions only that “Ham the father of Canaan saw his father’s nakedness and went telling it to his two brothers outside,” the question arises as to why Canaan rather than Ham became the object of the curse. Commenting on Genesis 9:24, which states that when Noah awoke from his wine he “got to know what his youngest son had done to him,” a footnote in Rotherham’s translation says: “Undoubtedly Canaan, and not Ham: Shem and Japheth, for their piety, are blessed; Canaan, for some unnamed baseness, is cursed; Ham, for his neglect, is neglected.” Similarly, a Jewish publication, 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.

These views, of necessity, are conjectural since the Biblical record does not give any details as to Canaan’s implication in the offense against Noah. Yet some implication seems definitely intended by the fact that, just before relating the case of Noah’s drunkenness, Canaan is abruptly introduced into the account (Genesis 9:18) and, in describing Ham’s actions, the record refers to him as “Ham the father of Canaan.” (Genesis 9:22) That the expression “saw his father’s nakedness” may indicate some abuse or perversion that involved Canaan, is a reasonable conclusion. For in most instances incest or other sexual sins are meant when the Bible speaks of ‘laying bare’ or ‘seeing the nakedness’ of another. (Leviticus 18:6-19; 20:17) So, it is possible that Canaan had committed or attempted to commit some abuse on the unconscious Noah and that Ham, though having knowledge of this, failed either to prevent it or to take disciplinary action against the offender, and compounded the wrong by making known to his brothers Noah’s disgrace.

Answer 2

Well, it's kind of a good point. I can't realyl justify it without throwing something else in like maybe Noah's curse was succesul, b/c I have no idea if it was or not.

But how about this?:
Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Answer 3

Well, one of the quotes is relating a story about Noah and Ham and Noah uttered the curse. The other is the word of God stating that children will not be punished for the sins of their fathers, but for their own sins. I think people often get mixed up between what are stories meant to teach a lesson or history and words that actually come from God telling us what's expected of us. Many religions teach that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God, but that isn't so and we need to learn to tell the difference between what God is telling us and what is being related as history.

Answer 4

The inaccuracy of the theory that the xtian god is the crucial author of the scripture and that it could incorporate no errors, self contradiction, or something opposite to scientific or historic evidence is unquestionably examined. To be the crucial author the story could be unique--yet--examine with the Noah tale and the Sumerian epic of gilgamesh. The memories are very almost same however the sumerian epic predates the hebrew tale by ability of a pair of thousand years. The sumerian ark tale is the unique--the hebrew author subsequently can't be construed because of the fact the unique author. One could suspect on some thing this signficant the unique tale could have the right deity, yet if the hebrew author ws concept then then the god(s) interior the orignal tale have been incorrect. rather a gross misjudgment to no longer referr to the unique tale as a mistelling interior the hebrew tale is it no longer? One applies an identical good judgment to the babylonian creation tale (made made by ability of the gods from the clay of the earth) which predates the biblical tale as quickly as back. Or the sumerian fantasy of king sargon (toddler placed in reed basket sealed with pitch and placed in river to be got here across and ultimately raised as royalty) which predates the moses tale as quickly as back. the finished bible is crammed with divine Authorship that suspiciously echos plenty till now myths. because of the undeniable fact that the human beings who could become the jews lived interior the area between the egyptians and babylonians and could have been around the campfires of investors between those 2 super empires--and heard those myths--one has to rationally evaluate the prospect that the hebrews purely wove those historical myths into their own rising religious myths--and that no divine authorship became invovled--purely the writings of a human beings coming up their own relgion.

Answer 5

Those verses are about two entirely different situatiuons. Noah pronounced a curse ofer his son for the wrong that he did saying he would be a servant to his brothers. Such curses were acceptable at that time and were part of their culture. In Deuterotomy God ends the practice of the sons being punished for their fathers sins.

Answer 6

I don't see the contradiction here. Noah is -cursing- Canaan because he saw his nakedness. In Deuteronomy it's talking about not putting fathers to death because of kids' sin and kids to death because of fathers' sin. Canaan isn't being "put to death" in Genesis right there.

Answer 7

Noah cursed the son, not put him to death. He was to be a servent to servents. Basically not a very high position in fleshly earthly life.

He did not put him to death.

Canaan still had every opportuntity to follow Gods will and way, and live for eternity in heaven.

So, no they are not in contradiction. Noah did not put anyone to death for seeing him drunk and naked. Even if he had, it would have been Noah's sin to go against what Gods word states, not God.

Answer 8

I do not see that there is a contradiction in the above texts. There were two different laws in effect at those two different times; a verbal law (Genesis), and a different law, given from Exodus 20 thru Deut. 27. Even Jesus talked about thembeing different Matt. 19:7-9.

Answer 9

No, they deal with completely different things.

Putting someone to death for someone else's actions is totally different than a curse passing through generations.

Heck, we do it all the time, don't we? We attach a stigma to people because soemone they are related to has commited some crime.

I had it happen. My 10 year old kid was playing with matches and was expelled- rightly so- and NO ONE from the school parents will talk to me. I even had one mother accuse me of poor parenting....this was a month before her daughter threw away my daughter's football cleat, causeing her to miss football practice. Later, the mother told me " Obviously, I didn't raise her to do something like this." I told her," Hopefully you will remember in the future that our children do not always do as we have taught them!"

Answer 10

No because Genesis 9 isn't talking about being put to death but rather cursed.

However, Deuteronomy 24:16 is contradicted by Exodus 20 "

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

and Exodus 34:7

"maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation"

and Leviticus 14:18

'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

AND Deuteronomy 5:9

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"

It is typical of Christians to ignore the majority of tough to swallow scriptures and take the one that sounds nice.

EDIT: Yeah, I'm a "foolish" unbeliever, these don't contradict each other at all....(eyeroll) Maybe I'm reading them wrong? I don't think so.