Why did Noah Curse Ham?

[throwback]

What did Han do so bad that Noah felt cursing his generationn's seed into servitude was merited? Is it possible that Ham's sin against his father was more sinister that one may initially believe? I have recently considered the possibility that Ham may in fact have castrated his father while he was asleep inn order to preserve his inheritance?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What did Hanm do so bad that Noah felt cursing his gennerationn's seed innto servitude was merited? Is it possible that Ham's sin against his father was more sinister that one may initially believe? I have recently considered the possibility that Ham may in fact have castrated his father while he was asleep inn order to preserve his inheritance?
Yowsers! That's a pretty heavy speculation. If it were true, I think Noah would have had a more severe reaction, like killing him. But your attempt to answer this question is similar to an old idea that suggests Ham may have sexually molested his father or had incest with his mother. This is based on the similar language between Gen 9 and Lev 18:
Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Exactly the same language is used in both verses. So in Hebrew, there is an "overtone" or a "suggestion" of sex with his father or mother, and given the fact that there is a record of incest in the same book (Gen 19:32), it does not seem too unlikely. The severity of Noah's response suggests something more than merely "seeing" his nakedness happened.

[Bob May]

What did Hanm do so bad that Noah felt cursing his gennerationn's seed innto servitude was merited? Is it possible that Ham's sin against his father was more sinister that one may initially believe? I have recently considered the possibility that Ham may in fact have castrated his father while he was asleep inn order to preserve his inheritance?

It is a puzzling episode. I think it has to do with three types of people that inhabit the earth. Or three parts of us.

Ge 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

Those after spiritual things, Shem
The intellectual, Japeth
And the Carnal, Ham.

Ham is the father of Canaan which means lowland.
Ham means "sunburnt"

Ge 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Ge 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

This seems to be the way mankind should function. The way the flow should go.

Shem, spirit, is blessed by his "Father", Japeth, intellect, dwells in the tents of spirit (shem) and is enlarged by that.
Ham, the carnal, and his offspring should be merely the servants.

We have a Spiritual awakening (Wisdom). We try to make sense out of it (Understanding). We live accordingly (in the flesh).

To try and touch spiritual things by carnal means we are "going against the flow" and asking to get "burnt."
Like the tower of Babel or the guy who tried to keep the ark of the covenant from falling over.
Caution, High Voltage!

Bob

[Silence]

Arthur Custance wrote a "Doorway Paper" on Noah's cursing of Canaan, Ham's son. (http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume1/Part_IV/Chapter1.html) In it he made some interesting observations about the historical evidence surrounding Noah's three sons. The descendants of Ham have really been servants to the rest of humanity. Every place that Shem and Japeth's descendants have settled, Ham's offspring have been there first, coming up with exceedingly simple and yet very effective ways of overcoming the environmental obstacles standing in the way of human settlement. They are very practical, and tend to look at everything from a short-term, practical standpoint, even religion. He also states that most people who are experts in the field agree that every type of technological invention can be traced back to it's simplest form and introduction in history to the descendants of Ham. There are only a few inventions that are noted as possible exceptions. In the quote that follows he cites a Man named Needham in researching them in relation to China, but elsewhere in the Doorway Paper he states that they are actually the only examples of innovations by non-Hamites in the whole of history.


Marco Polo gives us quite an extensive account of the use of paper money. He says it was issued in various denominations, stamped authoritatively by the Governor of the Mint, and circulated as the only form of valid currency over a very wide geographical area. The bills, he says, were quite remarkably strong and did not tear easily; any which had been torn, however, or had suffered defacement, were recalled to the Mint and replaced. Strikingly reflecting our own bills of a few years ago, they contained a promise that they would be redeemed for certain fixed quantities of either precious stones or metals upon request. Foreign merchants could not sell their jewels or precious metals on the open market, but were required to turn them in at the Mint, where they received recompense in paper money.
Consider how great such an innovation really was. Marco Polo says, a man who wished to move could turn in hundreds of pounds (by weight) of valuable goods in personal property, walk away with a pocketful of money so light as to be hardly noticeable, with which in some other part of the Empire he could recover his hundreds of pounds of goods. Everywhere else in the world men were loaded down with the weight of their possessions, which often took such a form as to be almost worthless once the owner left his own locality. What such a scheme did for trade and commerce is incalculable. What paper money does for us today is virtually to keep our civilization running. Maybe we would have come to it anyway in time, but certainly we did not originate the idea. It originated in the 13th century with the Great Khan.
Needham has pointed out, it was often many centuries before such inventions reached the West from China. And he also notes that China received from the West very little in return: actually, only four items -- the screw principle, a force pump for liquids, the crankshaft, and clockwork powered by a spring. (144) Of these, only the screw principle and an alternative form of it (the windmill) seem actually to be to the credit of Indo-Europeans, possibly the Greeks for the screw and the Persians for the windmill. There is evidence that even the screw was obtained from Egypt.

In spite of the fact that Hamites have given us the foundation for every basic tool for survival in this world, they have received very little in return. Those who benefited from them used their ability to use abstract thinking in order to improve them and in turn gain advantage over the original inventors. Hamites have been servants to humanity in a very basic way. And they are by no means unable to progress spiritually or mentally as some people have claimed in the past. It seems that the descendants of Noah benefit the most when all three groups are living together.

[weeder]

Yowsers! That's a pretty heavy speculation. If it were true, I think Noah would have had a more severe reaction, like killing him. But your attempt to answer this question is similar to an old idea that suggests Ham may have sexually molested his father or had incest with his mother. This is based on the similar language between Gen 9 and Lev 18:
Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Exactly the same language is used in both verses. So in Hebrew, there is an "overtone" or a "suggestion" of sex with his father or mother, and given the fact that there is a record of incest in the same book (Gen 19:32), it does not seem too unlikely. The severity of Noah's response suggests something more than merely "seeing" his nakedness happened.

Hi there,

I came to the same conclusion a few years ago.

Noah wakes up from his sleep and realises what had happened. Im pretty sure that if i had been castrated during the night id wake up immediately.

Why is canaan singled out ?



Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 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 [k]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. 25 So he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;[l]A servant of servants
He shall be to his brothers.”



Ham had other sons
,
The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.

How did Noah know it was the younger son?
Was Ham his younger son?

[CWH]

Hi there,

I came to the same conclusion a few years ago.

Noah wakes up from his sleep and realises what had happened. Im pretty sure that if i had been castrated during the night id wake up immediately.

Why is canaan singled out ?



Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 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 [k]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. 25 So he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;[l]A servant of servants
He shall be to his brothers.”



Ham had other sons
,
The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.

How did Noah know it was the younger son?
Was Ham his younger son?

I have no problem at all in interpreting why Noah cursed Ham. In ancient Hebrew custom, nakedness was considered immorality. This is why Adam and Eve covered their shame of nakedness which was the realization of immorality when they have eaten the forbidden fruit. Therefore, when Ham saw the nakedness of his father Noah and did nothing to cover his father's nakedness was tantamount to not covering his shame of immorality. But his other two brothers covered Noah's nakedness. As such, Ham and his generations were cursed for refusing to cover the shame of their immorality as we saw in the destruction of the Canaanites and Moabites who were the descendants of Ham and were wayward in their sexual pervasion practices and worship of idols such as Molech and Baal. What would you do if you saw a naked unconscious man or woman lying in a public road? A moral righteous person will cover their nakedness and sent them to the hospital to seek treatment for possible injury or illness. Not covering someone who is unconsciously naked exposing themselves to the public is the same as allowing or approving the practices of immorality. That was exactly what was seen in Ham who did not cover Noah's nakedness. Noah perhaps used it a test to see what was Ham's attitude towards immorality by the sight of his nakedness. It proved that Ham approved or supported the practices of immorality without shame and thus received the curse for his generations.

God Bless Morality.:pray:

[weeder]

It proved that Ham approved or supported the practices of immorality without shame and thus received the curse for his generations.

God Bless Morality.:pray:

:yo: CWH
Yeah id cover someone who was unconscious and naked, and lying in a public place...i think. If the person was in his own tent......maybe not.

It doesnt say anything about all of Hams Sons being cursed, just the youngest one, Canaan.

[CWH]

:yo: CWH
Yeah id cover someone who was unconscious and naked, and lying in a public place...i think. If the person was in his own tent......maybe not.

It doesnt say anything about all of Hams Sons being cursed, just the youngest one, Canaan.
Hi weeder,

The tent of Noah were opened in the sense that anyone could walked into it. This is also evident in Lot's tent in which his daughters could enter and even have incest with their father. A moral person would not want to look at someone's nakedness or expose someone's nakedness or commit incest. They were thus punished for their immoral acts.

God did not cursed all of Ham's sons except the notorious ones due to His mercifulness....or would you like God to cursed all of Ham's son?

God Bless Everybody.:pray:

[duxrow]

OK Throwback: No more children for Noah, and his wife is not mentioned anymore either! What's odd is that the curse was on Ham's son Canaan, instead of Ham himself. I've concluded that Ham slept with Noah's wife, and both died on the spot, then and there, based on Lev 18:8 "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness".

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.Gen9:22
:sEm_blush8: Gen9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

True that this was prior to publish of Levi or Tanakh, but so was the case of Noah's selection of clean/unclean animals.. :mmph:

[Silence]

Hi Dux,
The best explanation I have found for Noah cursing Canaan instead of Ham can be found here - http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume1/Part_III/Chapter1-2.html The behavior of a son was considered a direct reflection on the father in that culture. If Noah had cursed Ham, part of that curse would reflect back on him, since he was Ham's father. The opposite was also true if a son did something commendable. The following is a quote from the link above -

David had performed a deed of great national importance by destroying Goliath. David himself was no stranger to Saul for he had on many occasions played his harp to quiet the king's distracted spirit. Yet we find that when Saul saw David go forth against Goliath (verse 55) he said to Abner, the captain of his hosts, "Abner, whose son is this youth?" And although Abner must certainly have known David by name, he replied, "As thy soul liveth, O King, I cannot tell."
This has always seemed a strange remark both for the king and his commanding officer to have made. But the explanation lies in a proper understanding of the social significance of verse 58. "And Saul said unto him, Whose son art thou, young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse, the Bethlehemite." This is simply an occasion upon which, following the social custom of his own day, Saul sought to give credit where credit was due, namely, to the father. Because David was Jesse's son, Jesse was to receive recognition.
Another illustration will be found in I Kings 11:9-12:

And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.
Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee and will give it to thy servant.
Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.

This is a beautiful example, because it is so specific in statement. Solomon was to be punished: but he could not be punished personally without bringing discredit on David his father, and this the Lord was not willing to do. The only way in which Solomon could be punished appropriately without injuring David's name was therefore to punish Solomon's son.

The curse of being a "servant of servants" is also explained by Mr. Custance in a way that is consistent with the subsequent history of the human race. "Servant of servants" is a Hebrew construction for describing a superlative, a servant par-excellence. "King of Kings" is another example of this verbal construction. In Hebrew, when one wants to designate "the worst of the worst" a totally different method of expression is used. Ham's descendants truly have been servants par excellence. Every modern invention we have (with possibly two exceptions) can be traced back to its earliest form originating with one of the cultural groups descending from Ham. But they never get credit for their original inventions. Those who develop, refine and expand on the principles behind the basic inventions look down on the original inventors as being simple and crude. Too stupid to capitalize on their inventions by abstracting the working principles behind them, developing them further and then applying them advantageously in other situations.

I spent a good part of one snowy winter in Montana reading Mr. Custance's "Doorway Papers" online and I highly recommend them. He received a "Masters with Honors" degree in Hebrew, Greek, and Cuneform, so he knows a great deal bout the texts. He also earned a Phd in anthropology, which gives weight to his writing when he documents many ways that cultural habits of the ancient near east can explain a lot of biblical passages that perplex us "westerners". I've posted links to his website quite a few times on the forum here, but don't recall anyone saying that they had read any of them, or investigated any of Mr. Custance's other writings.

[duxrow]

OK David, Custance is an interesting read, but apparently doesn't believe 'allegory', such as how David gave the materials for building the Temple AS A PRECEPT for how the Bible is the material (WORD) for believers to build their personal temple.
Also, like how David's battle with Saul is allegory of how the Born-Again believer is spiritually fighting the old-man of the flesh..
Much more, but for another time..:ranger:

[sylvius]

Rashi:


http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8173#showrashi=true




saw his father’s nakedness: Some say that he castrated him, and some say that he sodomized him. — [from Sanh. 70a]



Cursed be Canaan: You have caused me to be incapable of begetting another fourth son (Gen. Rabbah , manuscripts, and early editions read: a fourth son) to serve me. Cursed be your fourth son, that he should minister to the children of these older ones [Shem and Japhet], upon whom the burden of serving me has been placed from now on (Gen. Rabbah 36:7). Now what did Ham see (what reason did he have) that he castrated him? He said to his brothers,“The first man [Adam] had two sons, and one killed the other so as to inherit the world, and our father has three sons, and he still desires a fourth son!” - [from Gen. Rabbah ibid. 5, 22:7]

[duxrow]

Duly noted, Sylvia. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. Lev18:8

If this wasn't stated so plainly in Leviticus, I might certainly agree with Rashi. Even so, the more important to be noted IMO is how Noah was the first of ten generations to have NO DAUGHTERS, and yet was "perfect in his generations" Gen6:9.

So the whole earth began to be populated by those three couples.. another "3 some", because nothing came of Noah and his wife. :thumb:

[sylvius]

Duly noted, Sylvia. The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. Lev18:8

If this wasn't stated so plainly in Leviticus, I might certainly agree with Rashi. Even so, the more important to be noted IMO is how Noah was the first of ten generations to have NO DAUGHTERS, and yet was "perfect in his generations" Gen6:9.

So the whole earth began to be populated by those three couples.. another "3 some", because nothing came of Noah and his wife. :thumb:

Abraham was perfect too and had no daughters.

[duxrow]

Sure Sylvia, and likewise Joseph and Judah -- added to Noah and Abraham, and Isaac, those pivotal persons w/o daughters is beyond coincidence, but begs the question "Where's the case for No Sons?"..:huhsign:

Besides, 'perfect' used only in Gen6:9 and 17:1, where Abraham was asked to be perfect!

[duxrow]

That's right, Sylvie, because..
The Joseph in Egypt had two sons and NO daughters.
The Joseph in Matthew, IMO, had one daughter (Mary) and No sons.

A parallel with how Naomi began w 2 sons, but finished w Ruth. :thumb:

Matt 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the <strike>husband</strike> of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ".

[sylvius]

Sure Sylvia, and likewise Joseph and Judah -- added to Noah and Abraham, and Isaac, those pivotal persons w/o daughters is beyond coincidence, but begs the question "Where's the case for No Sons?"..:huhsign:

Besides, 'perfect' used only in Gen6:9 and 17:1, where Abraham was asked to be perfect!


You might think that as Abram he wasn't perfect yet.

Rashi:



and be perfect: This too is one command following another command: be perfect in all My trials (Mid. Ps. 119:3), i.e., “Walk before Me” with faith and honesty, and also be perfect in all My trials. [Mizrachi] According to its midrashic interpretation, walk before Me refers to the commandment of circumcision, and thereby, you will be perfect, for as long as the foreskin is upon you, I consider you imperfect (Gen. Rabbah 46:1). Another explanation: “and be perfect” - Now you are missing [control over] five organs: two eyes, two ears, and the male organ. I will add a letter to your name, and the numerical value of your letters [of your name] will be 248, corresponding to the number of your organs (Tan. Lech Lecha 16, Ned. 32b).

[sylvius]

That's right, Sylvie, because..
The Joseph in Egypt had two sons and NO daughters.
The Joseph in Matthew, IMO, had one daughter (Mary) and No sons.

A parallel with how Naomi began w 2 sons, but finished w Ruth. :thumb:

Matt 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the <strike>husband</strike> of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ".

What? Jospeh father of Mary?

Matthew 13:
54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

[duxrow]

Hey Sylvie,
I figure Rashi would still be dancing on cloud nine if he'd discovered this -- those ancient scholars are to be commended, but they didn't have the modern study aids like we have today. Myself, appreciate Bullinger and his appendixes in The Companion Bible, for getting me started right..

Mary's father and husband were Both named Joseph, and if you'll study the others named Joseph, it should be a blessing!

[sylvius]

Hey Sylvie,
I figure Rashi would still be dancing on cloud nine if he'd discovered this -- those ancient scholars are to be commended, but they didn't have the modern study aids like we have today. Myself, appreciate Bullinger and his appendixes in The Companion Bible, for getting me started right..

Mary's father and husband were Both named Joseph, and if you'll study the others named Joseph, it should be a blessing!

Mary's father is said to be Joachim

http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/July-2011/Saints-Joachim-and-Anna.aspx

http://wordonfire.org/getmedia/d0af301d-f814-40f5-a6e9-3e23f8cde629/j-a-couple.aspx

[duxrow]

He's guessing, Sylvie, and getting it wrong about this. Did you count the Joseph's? Do you see how the No Daughters precepts were preparing for the No Son time of Christ? So that Mary had no brothers to carry on the "father-to-son" generations, which concluded at 66 (3x22). Also so that WE could relate to that Virgin Birth, seeing Mary as an example.

Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

and Galatians 4:19 "Christ formed in you.." THESE TWO ARE KEY! :banghead:

[David M]

It is a puzzling episode. I think it has to do with three types of people that inhabit the earth. Or three parts of us.

Ge 9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

Those after spiritual things, Shem
The intellectual, Japeth
And the Carnal, Ham.


The three spiritual characteristics shown in the sons of Noah, remind me of the three "frog spirits" that were spawned at the French Revolution and that are part of carnal Ham. The three "frog spirits" are; Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Those spirits are what "the wold", which is enmity with God, see as important and their right.

There is something in these stories whereby the character of each of these early founders of nations, become part of a national trait. The traits carried down the line of descendants. All nations have similar traits, but not in the same proportion, which is what makes them different.

The national traits that these nations have shown, could be the basis for the judgment that God upon those nations in the "Great Day of the LORD" to come.

Just food for thought.


David

[duxrow]

Sure David, and I like Bob May answer too -- the 3 could also be mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid -- are there 3 basic types of DNA ? idk - H20 a consideration because of how WATER (from the Rock) is called Holy and Rev22 "pure river of water of life"..

Isn't this a blast--water with holes?? What'll He think of next! :winking0071:

[sylvius]

He's guessing, Sylvie, and getting it wrong about this. Did you count the Joseph's? Do you see how the No Daughters precepts were preparing for the No Son time of Christ? So that Mary had no brothers to carry on the "father-to-son" generations, which concluded at 66 (3x22). Also so that WE could relate to that Virgin Birth, seeing Mary as an example.

Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

and Galatians 4:19 "Christ formed in you.." THESE TWO ARE KEY! :banghead:

Are you suggesting that Joseph had sex with his own daughter?

Just like Lot?

Moab means "from my father" - Ruth came from Moab and also she is said to have become pregnant "from the Lord",
Ruth 4:13, And Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he was intimate with her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son. like Mary,

while she seemingly got pregnant already before, Ruth 3:7, And Boaz ate and drank, and his heart was merry, and he went to lie at the edge of the stack, and she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down.
("feet" said to allude to the intimate parts),

Barabbas does mean "son of the (my) father".

Matthew presents two Jesuses, the one called Messiah and the other called son of the father.
Matthew 27:17, συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος, Τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν

Jesus Barabbas seeming to be just a literary figure, like the custom that Pilate should set one prisoner free on the day before Pesach seems to have been invented by the Gospelwriters (Mark in the first place).

So maybe your stance is not as nuts as it might seem :winking0071:

[duxrow]

Are you suggesting that Joseph had sex with his own daughter? NO WAY, JOSE! You sure get some screwy, way-out notions!
The Bio-Father of Jesus is GOD--not mortal man. Read the Gospels instead of Rashi..

Bet you still haven't counted the Josephs, or even the two Jacobs who begat a Joseph..

Try on the armor of God, Eph6, including feet shod with gospel of peace.. If you're ever going to walk with God, you can get your feet washed by Jesus instead of developing that mind in the gutter. :p

[sylvius]

NO WAY, JOSE! You sure get some screwy, way-out notions!
The Bio-Father of Jesus is GOD--not mortal man. Read the Gospels instead of Rashi..

Bet you still haven't counted the Josephs, or even the two Jacobs who begat a Joseph..

Try on the armor of God, Eph6, including feet shod with gospel of peace.. If you're ever going to walk with God, you can get your feet washed by Jesus instead of developing that mind in the gutter. :p

Isaiah 7:20 "hair of the feet" is said to mean "pubic hair" http://biblehub.com/isaiah/7-20.htm

See also: http://books.google.nl/books?id=T1dAKZpEIbsC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=hair+of+the+feet+%3D+pubic+hair+Isaiah+7:20&source=bl&ots=dAbxuesMIn&sig=8gk0o-AIkiYFkKW4fJ6_CxC9i4c&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=XPZfU7bRMsKZPe6hgeAM&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=hair%20of%20the%20feet%20%3D%20pubic%20hair%20Is aiah%207%3A20&f=false

[sylvius]

Also with Lot and his daughters wine was involved, like with Noach and Cham.

Genesis 19:30-36,

And Lot went up from Zoar, and he dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters were with him, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar; so he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the elder said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man on earth to come upon us, as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us give our father wine to drink, and let us lie with him, and let us bring to life seed from our father." And they gave their father wine to drink on that night, and the elder came and lay with her father, and he did not know of her lying down or of her rising up. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the elder said to the younger, "Behold, last night I lay with my father. Let us give him wine to drink tonight too, and come, lie with him, and let us bring to life seed from our father." So they gave their father to drink on that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know of her lying down or of her rising up. And Lot's two daughters conceived from their father.



he did not know of her lying down or of her rising up.
Rashi:

Heb. וּבְקוּמָהּ, mentioned in conjunction with the elder, is dotted (i.e., there is a dot over the second “vav”), to denote that when she arose, he did know, but nevertheless he was not careful not to drink on the second night (Nazir 23a). (Said Rabbi Levi: Whoever is inflamed by the lust for illicit relations, will ultimately be made to eat his own flesh (i.e., to commit incest). - [from Gen. Rabbah 51:9] [This does not appear in all editions of Rashi.]

This is interesting:
And Lot's two daughters conceived from their father.

Rashi:

Although a woman does not conceive from the first intercourse, these controlled themselves and took out their maidenhoods and conceived from the first intercourse. — [from Gen. Rabbah 51:9]

So Mary might have been not that innocent at all :eek:

[David M]

Also with Lot and his daughters wine was involved, like with Noach and Cham.

Genesis 19:30-36,

And Lot went up from Zoar, and he dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters were with him, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar; so he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the elder said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man on earth to come upon us, as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us give our father wine to drink, and let us lie with him, and let us bring to life seed from our father." And they gave their father wine to drink on that night, and the elder came and lay with her father, and he did not know of her lying down or of her rising up. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the elder said to the younger, "Behold, last night I lay with my father. Let us give him wine to drink tonight too, and come, lie with him, and let us bring to life seed from our father." So they gave their father to drink on that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know of her lying down or of her rising up. And Lot's two daughters conceived from their father.

he did not know of her lying down or of her rising up.
Rashi:

This is interesting:
And Lot's two daughters conceived from their father.


This story begs many questions. The sperm of Lot even in his old age, must have been very potent. For two women to have become pregnant on their first and only attempt is somewhat miraculous. Maybe God caused the desire of the two women to be realized and for a purpose known to God.

At other times, God is responsible for healing those women who were barren and who late in life went on to conceive. Maybe God caused the women to be barren in the first place, in order for some lesson to come out of their experience and the story that has been recorded for us to learn from.

The two sons born to the two daughters of Lot, became the founders of two nations (Gen 19:37); And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


(Jer 48:47) Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter days, saith the LORD. Thus far is the judgment of Moab.
(Jer 49:6) And afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith the LORD.

It is important to know where those countries are on the map, so we can see who are those nations today by another name.

Both the two nations were thorns and a snare to test Israel (which they failed) and the two nations are to receive their judgment of God along with all the other nations in the Great Day of the Lord.

[sylvius]

This story begs many questions. The sperm of Lot even in his old age, must have been very potent. For two women to have become pregnant on their first and only attempt is somewhat miraculous. Maybe God caused the desire of the two women to be realized and for a purpose known to God.

At other times, God is responsible for healing those women who were barren and who late in life went on to conceive. Maybe God caused the women to be barren in the first place, in order for some lesson to come out of their experience and the story that has been recorded for us to learn from.

The two sons born to the two daughters of Lot, became the founders of two nations (Gen 19:37); And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


(Jer 48:47) Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter days, saith the LORD. Thus far is the judgment of Moab.
(Jer 49:6) And afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon, saith the LORD.

It is important to know where those countries are on the map, so we can see who are those nations today by another name.

Both the two nations were thorns and a snare to test Israel (which they failed) and the two nations are to receive their judgment of God along with all the other nations in the Great Day of the Lord.

The mother of the Messiah came (comes) from Moab.
All Moabitesses were whores, like also the Messiah's mother.
Numbers 25 relates how the daughters of Moab seduced the sons of Israel, on wicked Balaam's advice.

Because the fact that Lot was destined to become father of the messianic generation Abraham intervened in the war of the four kings against the five (Genesis 14), even with his 318 trained servants.

[David M]

and Galatians 4:19 "Christ formed in you.." THESE TWO ARE KEY! :banghead:

Hello Dux

On the point of "Christ formed in you" how does that equate to my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with (or in?) him.? I know that we have the quote where is says (Psalm 34:7); The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him,. So then, do we have God and Jesus physically living in us and the Angel of God living with us to protect us? To answer this question and make sense of all scripture, we have to balance the book and find meaning that makes sense of it all and not just in part.

This is where there is difference of opinion over terms like the "spirit". A spirit can be this or that. The Holy Spirit gets confused in people's minds with a general spirit. To my thinking, a general spirit can be likened to any unseen force. The wind is a spirit. We do not see the air moving moving, we see the effects of the air moving and the air moving is what we call the wind. The wind is a force. A spirit equates to a force.

Communication is a spirit. By whatever means the communication takes place, the effects of the communication on another person can be seen. Communication is an unseen force (like the wind) that has the effect of producing good or evil in another person. In voice communication, you do not see the sound waves traveling through the air (which is in essence the same as wind). You do not see the electrons moving through the wires. These are all unseen forces at work and these unforeseen forces all fall into the category of spirits or forces for good and evil.

A good spirit has the force, or the outworking of doing good, whereas an evil spirit has the force, or the outworking of doing evil. Both good and evil spirits are of the spirit that is communication.

I am not saying that in every case, the word spirit is to be understood in that way, but there are many cases where the term spirit can be applied in that way.

The "spirit of Christ" can be the effective teaching (the process of communication) that comes from Christ through the Bible that influences us to do good. A person who has "the mind of Christ" also has the spirit of Christ dwelling in them. If we do not have the mind of Christ, then we can see in a metaphorical way, how God and Jesus do not make their abode with or in us.

If you agree with that logic, or interpretation of the scriptures, we can extend that principle to the "spirit (not Holy Spirit) of God" being in Jesus. God abode in Jesus, not physically, but in the sense that all of God's word, which Jesus had memorized and could recall, was having the mind of God in Jesus. That does not exclude the communication that came to Jesus direct from God via the Holy Spirit acting on Jesus. In that sense, Jesus became the embodiment of the word of God after he was born and was not the same word that was the outworking of God at the time of the Creation.

The Holy Spirit and its working is another subject for another time

All the best.

David

[duxrow]

David, the point of "Christ formed in us", Gal 4:19, Col 1:27, is to equate the Virgin Mary example to the individual believer. Its figurative (NOT literal). The Holy Spirit is a clean / reverent/ honest/ trustworthy spirit, IMO, and not to be confused with a perverse/unclean / sicko spirit that takes pleasure in bathroom or genital accounts.

I'm inclined to 'tease', thus my "holy water" play on words about water having holes.. :lol: To me, since we've been created in the image of GOD, why shouldn't we be able to see humor, even where "religious spirits" think it's unbecoming or even blasphemous?

[duxrow]

The mother of the Messiah came (comes) from Moab.
All Moabitesses were whores, like also the Messiah's mother.
Numbers 25 relates how the daughters of Moab seduced the sons of Israel, on wicked Balaam's advice.
Because the fact that Lot was destined to become father of the messianic generation Abraham intervened in the war of the four kings against the five (Genesis 14), even with his 318 trained servants.
Never forget, Sylvie, that Ruth was from Moab and she followed after Naomi (type of Holy Spirit) who led her to Redeemer Boaz, continuing the generation path to Jesus.

Rebekah had inquired of the LORD and learned that "Two nations were in her womb", so Lot's daughters were another two-nation birth, but Lot himself was NOT part of generations leading to Jesus -- rather it was Abraham#20, Jacob#22, David#33, Solomon#34, Assir#52, Jesus#66.

[sylvius]

Never forget, Sylvie, that Ruth was from Moab and she followed after Naomi (type of Holy Spirit) who led her to Redeemer Boaz, continuing the generation path to Jesus.

Rebekah had inquired of the LORD and learned that "Two nations were in her womb", so Lot's daughters were another two-nation birth, but Lot himself was NOT part of generations leading to Jesus -- rather it was Abraham#20, Jacob#22, David#33, Solomon#34, Assir#52, Jesus#66.

Lot fathered Moab from whom Ruth came forth.

[duxrow]

Yeah, Sylvie, from that POV everyone is connected to everyone else; we're ALL descended from Adam, and from the Noah line.. but the "Seed" of Jesus goes from father-to-son and the woman regarded as "LAND"..

1Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Jer3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? :huhsign:

[sylvius]

Yeah, Sylvie, from that POV everyone is connected to everyone else;

Lot was special, Abraham's nephew, they both came "from beyond the river",only that Lot settled down in the fruitful valey that was like the garden of Eden, while Abraham dwelled in the mountains.

Genesis 12:4, And Abram went, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him, and Abram was seventy five years old when he left Haran.


Genesis 13:10, . And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered; before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar.

Genesis 13:18, And Abram pitched his tents, and he came, and he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord.

To Abraham was made the promise, a promise that only could come true in cojunction with Lot. That 's why he chased after the four kings to set Lot free.