WHY do they teach that ...

**wonbyone** · 12-19-2002, 01:45 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Yes, it is certainly correct that there was no such thing as a Jew prior to Abraham as far as I can ascertain. A little slip plain and simple. I apologize. It changes nothing in principal.

It very well can be that Noah's curse WAS prophetic. Exodus 20:5 says "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, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.".

Perhaps Canaan and his descendants were to be punished because they were going to be worse than Ham.

Canaanites worshipped many gods. Ritual prostitution with worshippers participating in lewd and immoral acts was common as was human sacrifice and extreme cruelty in warfare.

**N.L.L.L. Aimé Olenga** · 12-19-2002, 02:00 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
[qb]

Originally posted by Tim:
[qb]

The Jewish people believed that sexual organs should not be displayed hence Noah's sons covered him.

[/qb]

Here we go again... WHY is it that so many people claim to understand the Bible, but they have absolutely NO understanding of the cultural references of the ancient Jewish people, and therefore, they canot popssibly have any clear understanding?!!

Tim is 100% correct. The Jews had (and still do have) a cultural taboo against the display of human sexual organs. Pure and simple. You'll not find any Jew (besides, perhaps the Reform Jews) who will nurse a baby in public, either!

The "crime" or the sin was that ONE son broadcast his father's state of drunken dishabille to the public ... and the "good deed" was that ANOTHER son respectfully caused the father's humiliating state to be covered up, or that he remedied/rectified his father's tacky situation.

The story may be taken rather literally, and there is no hidden insinuation. None whatsoever, other than modern fabrication.

Mutty and Tim are correct.

It IS, however, interesting to note, as someone already pointed out, that this does seem to be the earlyiest refernece linking drunkenness to lewd (or unacceptable) behavior. Then again... imbibing to much alcoholic beverage does indeed cause such, and how could our distant ancestors not recognize that?[/qb]

Hello! WitchyOoman;

Funny way to defend things by illogism could you tell me what this mean to you?

Leviticus 20: 18-20

18- And is a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakeness; he halth discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

19- And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.

20- And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

Tell me Witchy what they are talking about here in a plain english please I know you know it better than me. tell me what these three sentenses mean not your theory just meaning please.

Then you can look this ones here:

Genesis 9: 18-23

20- And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21- And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22- And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

After you finish the translation to the actual english of these paragraph then tell me. Where did you come with your theory?

Do you know that the Jews or Hebrews are but a hoax, and people naming themselves jews or hebrews are but human deception and shame that is propagated only by ignorance of science and good information.

I will be getting back to you with this one the non existence of the hebrews and or jews is no where in history recorded. They are historically a myth like the arabs, they both never existed nowhere except in the dominated kaukazian dominion.

Good walk.

**N.L.L.L. Aimé Olenga** · 12-19-2002, 02:10 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Tim:
[qb]Yes, it is certainly correct that there was no such thing as a Jew prior to Abraham as far as I can ascertain. A little slip plain and simple. I apologize. It changes nothing in principal.

It very well can be that Noah's curse WAS prophetic. Exodus 20:5 says "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, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.".

Perhaps Canaan and his descendants were to be punished because they were going to be worse than Ham.

Canaanites worshipped many gods. Ritual prostitution with worshippers participating in lewd and immoral acts was common as was human sacrifice and extreme cruelty in warfare.[/qb]

Tim sense of logic, please... when Noah and his son was having an argument about Ham uncovering his nakedness and having a baby Canaan, thereafter.

Because if you read correctly Leviticus 20: 20, stated that "they could have been together but they shall not bear child" but in this specific case there was a child and that child was Canaan.

That has nothig to do with Canaanites behaviours. Stop jumping all over... this discussion is between two rivals, Noah the father and Ham the son, it didn't involve Ham child Canaan, Noah's grandson and stepson? Keep your eyes on the ball, that is the only way to watch a footbal game.

Good walk.

**wonbyone** · 12-19-2002, 03:10 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Just a reminder...these threads are good in that it gets people researching bible passages but...do not take what ANYONE says as "gospel". Read for yourselves. Check out various sites to see what the generally accepted meaning is. Compare the KJV to the NIV. There is nothing wrong with questioning what you read. Ask God for guidance. Gently correct erroneous facts. Discuss your ideas constuctively as to what a passge may mean to you.

It has been my experience that nothing will make sence at times. At other times you will not be able to stop reading and will absorb passages as a sponge.

It is surprising to see that knowledge is sprouting from controversy and so that too is good. Do not let the words of some cause you anger. If you are angry...your posts will be angry ones and then who is the winner with you as the prize?

**N.L.L.L. Aimé Olenga** · 12-19-2002, 05:07 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Interesting Tim;

I just received from a friend a Today's English Version of the bible. Believe me I was shocked when I read it... a total fraud..., and I will like to make you my witness before I make any comments.

I am putting both version side by side here for you, the King James Version vs the Today's English Version. I know people here say, I speak bad english... let them the duty to put this is proper english and tell us if these two versions are talking about the same story, or it is different version of fact?

If indeed it does... because I believe from my poor english it does... You will tell me then what all this disucussion is about? Lets read:
-------------------
Genesis 9: 20-22
KJV
20- And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

TEV
20- Noah, who was a farmer, was the first man to plant a vineyard.

--
Is this two have similar meaning?
--------------------

KJV
21- And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

TEV
21- After he drank some of the wine, he became drunk, took off his clothes, and lay naked in the tent.

---
And is this for you?
--------------------

KJV
22- And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

TEV
22- When Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked, he went out and told his brothers.

Tell me if these sentenses of the new version keep fidelity of the meaning of what they were translating or they just changed to suit to their fraud? Sorry about me calling it that way.

I don't see how people of decent morality and behaviours would do this... this is not translation but falsification. Do you still disagree with that still?

No where in the Old testament "uncovered one neakedness" means to have no clothe on. we can see clearly that the word in Leviticus 20 gives us with all clarity in what contest this word was used for... and gave the meaning of the word uncover... meaning to have sexual intercourse with a someone...

We could speculate maybe he had sex with Noah but it become obvius that, that wasn't possible since he couldn't have gave birth of Canaan. Would he had sex with Noah that wouldn't have caused Canaan curse.

There is something very peculiar to Canaan curse and that we get it from Leviticus 20: 20. Knowing that Canaan was the last born of his father...

And the fact that the verse 21 opening by Ham Canaan father... that determines that the conflict was about Canaan incestious birth which was against the common practice according to the bible.

Why I say that? Knowing the culture of the Middle East people now which is most ssimilar to many part of Afrikkkan people today, in some respect. Parents are called by the name of their first born.

Translate... if I am a father of three children the first is Djogo, the secong Adgima, and the third Xhamani. People who know our children. close friends and family will call their mother or myself Mama Djogo or Papa Djogo. And in this case the writer should had used the name of Noah first child.

Which he didn't... for the simple reason the conflict was all about why Ham had a child with de mada? Common sense, and if you have people from the Middle East or those fake Jews in your neigbourhood, ask them about what I just said about naming convention custom.

The question we should focus on is why is it that the fourth and the last born of Ham was cursed? Why is that Ham son's caused Noah's legacy shame? Why Canaan was cursed instead of his father?

Good walk.

**kthydvs** · 12-19-2002, 10:24 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by N.L.L.L. Aimé Olenga:
[qb]

Originally posted by Kumba:
[qb]"All men living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and are derived from a common stock...Biological differences between human beings are due to differences in hereditary constitution and to the influence of the environment on this genetic potential. In most cases, those differences are due to the interaction of these two sets of factors. Differences between individuals within a race or within a population are often greater than the average differnces between races and populations" quote from A Statement on Race, comvened by UNESCO.

A race is simply one of partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth...man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase in history and we can measure and study results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. Thus early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distintive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring.

now it seems we have a choice here. Is it creation or evolution that brought about the diffent races of mankind. If we believe it is evolution, then the flood is nothing but a fairystory. But if we believe the creation theory, then the resulting explanation for the different races is easily understood as the various races are merely facets of the total variation possible in mankind[/qb]

Sorry dear this is not right but a kaukazian propaganda... Kaukazians and Ebonite are very distinctive races and have nothing with each other origin.

What UNESCO is saying or supporting is but kaukazian supremacist view not the reality. I will come back to you with this one.

Good walk.[/qb]

if we assume your theory is correct, on what evidence is it based? if there is not link between the races that would discount both creation and evolution. would you share with us please how the different races came to be? One statement of fact for you is if we use the definition of race to mean a division of manking possessing in characteristic proportions certain combinations of physical traits that can be inherited and that are sufficient to set the group apart as a distinct human type, the fact is out of all the species on the planet, we are the only group that is capable of reproducing with each other, and the outcome is healthy, strong, offspring. You don't see members of the ape family emulating this, nor within the cat family (i.e. tigers, lions)as just two examples. Please when you reply give the source of your reasonings. I have asked you previously for refernced work. If you wish to be taken seriously, any theory must be not just your thoughts and ideas, but supported by valid research.

**wonbyone** · 12-19-2002, 10:59 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

An excellent resource for research is crosswalk.com. Click on faith and then bible study to come to a page that has a "search the bible feature". You can use any version of the bible that is listed but the KJV with Strong's numbers gives definitions of words that can help a lot. Lexicons is also a very good feature as it gives both the Greek and Hebrew words and their various definitions. The commentaries section also offers legitimate insight into the bible.

If there was any doubt whatsoever as to whether Ham had sex with his father or his mother or his aunt or whether planting grapevines means having sex than this site will dispel that myth. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone is really that "impressionable" and they probably will not need to check those out.

**WitchyOoman** · 12-19-2002, 12:56 PM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

**WitchyOoman** · 12-19-2002, 01:15 PM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

**fOrTyLeGz** · 12-19-2002, 04:23 PM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Tim:

It very well can be that Noah's curse WAS prophetic. Exodus 20:5 says "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, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.".

But there were no Canaanites at this time either.

Originally posted by Tim:

Perhaps Canaan and his descendants were to be punished because they were going to be worse than Ham.

What father would punish like this, for things that he believes will happen in the future. This kind of foreknowledge is left for Jesus, isn't it?

Originally posted by Tim:
Canaanites worshipped many gods. Ritual prostitution with worshippers participating in lewd and immoral acts was common as was human sacrifice and extreme cruelty in warfare.

Canaanites came much later. Noah surely didn't hurl this curse because in the distant future Ham's descendents were going to worship the wrong god. He punished him because he saw him naked (and drunk).

**wonbyone** · 12-19-2002, 05:52 PM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]

Originally posted by Tim:

It very well can be that Noah's curse WAS prophetic. Exodus 20:5 says "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, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.".

But there were no Canaanites at this time either.

Originally posted by Tim:

Perhaps Canaan and his descendants were to be punished because they were going to be worse than Ham.

What father would punish like this, for things that he believes will happen in the future. This kind of foreknowledge is left for Jesus, isn't it?

Originally posted by Tim:
Canaanites worshipped many gods. Ritual prostitution with worshippers participating in lewd and immoral acts was common as was human sacrifice and extreme cruelty in warfare.

Canaanites came much later. Noah surely didn't hurl this curse because in the distant future Ham's descendents were going to worship the wrong god. He punished him because he saw him naked (and drunk).[/qb]

Reread the post and especially the Exodus passage. Not everything that is in the bible refers to the then present. The question is whether Noah's words were truly a punishment or a prophesy. Exodus hints that it may be the latter. BTW Jesus was not on the earth to condemn but to save. Neither was he around during the time of Noah.

**Mutty** · 12-19-2002, 06:02 PM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

40, that is the whole reason why it is called a prophesy. It predicts something that would come to pass which makes the whole thing even more amazing. How did Noah no hundreds of years later that the Canaanites would be a cursed people and that they would be servants to the descendants of Shem and Japheth?

Keep in mind that Noah's curse was a prediction of and not the cause of. The passage may indicate Canaan had a trait that made such a prediction easy to make. There is no sensible reason Noah would jump on Canaan out of the clear blue unless Canaan had something to do with the entire incident.

**WitchyOoman** · 12-20-2002, 01:20 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

**NALLIMHEL** · 12-21-2002, 10:33 PM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

I am starving for the answer of this and I wish the respondant is making sure that this request merit attention.

Peace.

**fOrTyLeGz** · 12-22-2002, 04:53 AM

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:

40, that is the whole reason why it is called a prophesy. It predicts something that would come to pass which makes the whole thing even more amazing. How did Noah no hundreds of years later that the Canaanites would be a cursed people and that they would be servants to the descendants of Shem and Japheth?

Keep in mind that Noah's curse was a prediction of and not the cause of. The passage may indicate Canaan had a trait that made such a prediction easy to make. There is no sensible reason Noah would jump on Canaan out of the clear blue unless Canaan had something to do with the entire incident.

But, had Ham not boasted to his brothers about what he had seen, would not everything have turned out differently?

WHY do they teach that ...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads