What do you know about Genesis 9 verse 20?

Thx so much for enlightening me, i do get it now.....

Many ppl break homes, relationships of any kind or bring problem onto ppl bcos of gossip.
Instead of Ham covering his father he went to gossip, he cud hav told other people as well.

I do see a great lesson in this. thx again 

Posted: at 7-02-2012 04:43 PM (12 years ago) | Addicted Hero

Am so sure God knows this too. So why will his champion(Noah) put a great curse as such, on his son, who did wrong, only because he did not cover up his drunken father.

Honestly, I belief there's much to this tale than the way it is translated.

The Hebrew word translated as "uncover someone's nakedness" hre is "‘er·waṯ" written as "עֶרְוַ֣ת". This words if well explained means segxwal intercourse......GBAM!!

We can check all the places the same word was used in the bible including as law in Leviticus.....

Posted: at 7-02-2012 11:31 PM (12 years ago) | Gistmaniac

Actually, there's another interpretation here.

"When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent" - so Noah uncovered himself; Ham wasn't responsible. So if "uncover someone's nakedness" means segxwal intercourse, perhaps Noah had been masturbating?

Posted: at 8-02-2012 10:59 AM (12 years ago) | Gistmaniac

"The whole community" was Noah, his (unnamed) wife, his three sons, and their (unnamed) wives.

From Wikipedia:

The overall objective of the story is to justify the subject status of the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham, to the Israelites, the descendants of Shem. The details of the story, however, are mysterious: What did Ham do? Why did the punishment fall on Ham's son instead of on Ham? Modern scholars have suggested that two stories have been conflated, an original Canaan-oriented one in which the sons were Shem, Japheth and Canaan, and a later one in which Noah's sons were Shem, Japheth and Ham: the "Curse of Ham" was thus an intentional byproduct of an attempt to turn a story about why Israel deserved Canaan into a story about God's sovereignty over the entire world.

There are further puzzles: Genesis 9:24 says that Noah awoke and "knew what his youngest son had done to him," but when Noah's sons are listed elsewhere Ham is named second, as if he is the middle son;[7] again, Genesis 9:25 Noah names Shem and Japheth as the "brethren" of Canaan, which they are not, or not according to the main story; and the treatment of Japheth in Genesis 9:26-27 raises questions of its own (why is YHWH named as the God of Shem but not of Japheth, what does it mean that God will "enlarge" Japheth, and why will Japheth "dwell in the tents of "Shem"?) In Genesis 10, which follows immediately after this episode, Ham is the father of, among others, Canaan and Egypt (Genesis 10:6 - the Hebrew name is Misr); in other texts, Egypt is Ham, as in Psalms 105 and 106. The Bible frequently makes the association between Ham/Egypt and Canaan, stressing the segxwal immorality of both; given that Persia and Egypt were enemies in the 4th century, the sharing of the curse between Ham the father and Canaan the son may reflect the Persian-era author's propaganda against both Egypt, the 4th century enemy of the Persian empire, and the "Canaanites", the religious enemies of the Jewish province of Yehud.

The majority of commentators, both ancient and modern, have felt that Ham's seeing his father naked was not a sufficiently serious crime to explain the punishment that follows. Nevertheless, Genesis 9:23, in which Shem and Japheth cover Noah with a cloak while averting their eyes, suggests that the words are to be taken literally, and it has recently been pointed out that in 1st millennium Babylonia looking at another person's genitals was indeed regarded as a serious matter.  The majority of commentators, from ancient times to today, have nevertheless been unhappy with the explanation given in Genesis. One alternative advanced by modern scholars is based on the fact that, in the Bible, to "uncover the nakedness" of a man means to have sex with his wife (e.g. Leviticus 20:11). If Ham had sex with his mother, and Canaan was the product of this forbidden union, it could explain why the curse falls on his son; the weakness, however, is that Genesis 9:21 has Ham "seeing" his father's nakedness, not "uncovering" it.  In biblical language, "seeing" someone's nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g Leviticus 20:17). The same idea was raised by ancient commentators: a debate between two 3rd century rabbis, preserved in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), introduces the arguments that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him. The same explanations are found in three Greek translations of the Bible, which replace the word "see" in verse 22 with another word denoting homosegxwal relations. The castration theory has its modern counterpart in suggested parallels found in the castration of Uranus by Cronusand a Hittite myth of the supreme god Anu whose genitals were "bitten off by his rebel son and cup-bearer Kumarbi, who afterwards rejoiced and laughed ... until Anu cursed him".

Because of its brevity and textual inconsistencies, it has been suggested that this narrative is a “splinter from a more substantial tale”. A fuller account would explain what exactly Ham “had done to” his father; or why Noah directed a curse at Canaan for Ham’s misdeed; or how Noah came to know what occurred.

That last bit is why using the Bible as an authority is not necessarily a good idea. As the song says, "The things that you're liable/To read in the Bible/ain't necessarily so".

Posted: at 8-02-2012 12:36 PM (12 years ago) | Gistmaniac

No wonder that bit got edited... surprised that it survived at all!

Posted: at 9-02-2012 10:37 AM (12 years ago) | Gistmaniac