Chapter 9 verse 20 through 25 it says Noah lay naked in a drunken stuper, while his youngest son Ham "covered his nakedness" In my Bible study class i was told that part claims Ham the youngest son of Noah raped his mother... Is this really so?? This is NOT how i interpreted it!!!
2007-10-04 10:31:55 · 10 answers · asked by Romy 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Romy, this is pure imagination - not at all scriptural
2007-10-04 10:35:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Swindled gave the best answer. Here is another (more important) reference:
Lev chapter 18, especially, speaks of "uncovering nakedness" at length
Lev 20:11 (already mentioned) and following verses, as well
Thus, you can see how some arrive at the conclusion that Ham had sex with Noah's wife (whether it was his mother or not, we do not know). However, if you *read the verses*, this seems an unlikely interpretation.
Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, (c)
Copyright The LOCKMAN Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963,
1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1988 Used by
permission.
Gen 9: 21-24
21. And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.
22. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
23. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness.
24. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him.
Thus, we see 1st that Noah uncovered *himself*.while drunk. As a *result* of this, Ham *saw* his father's nakedness. Thus, we see that Ham did *not* *uncover* his father's nakedness, Noah himself did. After reading the verses in Lev, I could see how someone could come to the conclusion that Ham saw his father having sex, (or afterwards), but there is no way a reasonable person, after reading these verses *carefully*, could come to the conclusion that *Ham* had uncovered Noah's nakedness.
Another reasonable interpretation is merely that which is obvious: that Noah's genitalia were exposed. Note that with Abraham and Isaac, sons put their hand on their father's "thigh" (loins) when receiving their inheritance and their "birthright blessing". Thus, the knowledge that this is from which the son came was important, at *least* symbolically, if not reverentially. That Ham would report this exposure to his brothers, instead of trying to preserve, with reverence, the dignity of his father, especially of the loins from which he sprang, seems to me to be the more likely interpretation of this verse.
Note that the answer who spoke of naked prophets is entirely accurate, but this is a quite different situation. Here, we are speaking of the loins of the man who fathered you, not the nakedness of some acceptably-nutty-acting ("in the spirit") prophet. Noah was not prophesying here, he was merely drunk and naked in his tent - as one might imagine, a quite scandalous position in which to be witnessed, even by your own son. To have this reported to others - well, I think you catch my drift.
Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/
2007-10-07 00:05:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am so sorry but in another part of the bible it does indeed explain that to uncover your fathers nakedness is to lay with his wife. Not necessarily rape. It just means to have sex with his wife. I will look up the chapter and verse . I have dial up so it will be a few minutes. It is in Lev. chapter 20 verse 11. It simply states that to lay with your fathers wife is to uncover your fathers nakedness . Check it out !! I think I have it right now. What say you?
2007-10-04 17:39:27 · answer #3 · answered by swindled 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
people have such weird interpretations to the Bible The Ark could not have held the millions of different kinds of animals of the world so the story is not even a good myth. What Noah his wife and sons did is purely more nonsense to get people to bear their false witness about.
2007-10-04 17:39:05 · answer #4 · answered by wreaser2000 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Some have argued that. Others say it was because he was mocking Noah. Still others say it was because they saw him naked. That last interpretation is ridiculous, since OT prophets sometimes prophesied naked and even Peter in the NT went fishing naked.
Personally I believe the second one.
2007-10-04 17:35:18 · answer #5 · answered by CJ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, there is no evidence to even suggest that occoured. It refers to Noah being naked and showing an unacceptable level of disrespect and his son covered him up. What bible study suggested that? Sometimes there isn't some deeper meaning, it's just what is said.
2007-10-04 17:37:44 · answer #6 · answered by MattH 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've never heard that Ham raped his mother. I'd be very leery of that until you had a good reference. I hate it when people mess with a good myth.
2007-10-04 17:36:22 · answer #7 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No ,ask them to show you where they read it . Rev 22:18
2007-10-04 17:36:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know how they came up with that..it's not in the Bible
2007-10-04 17:35:08 · answer #9 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
just as good a fantasy as the rest of the good book.
2007-10-04 17:35:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋