Hi Mike,

I thought nakedness can also  be equated to'truth'.

Another great posts and I thought I was the only one who asked all those questions about the Noah and Ham story.  It's right up there with how long it took me to read that part about first fruits when it came to Abel.

Blessings,

David.

HI Mike,

Coming back to the point,  When we love some one, One's weakness should always be covered. Ham instead of covering his father's nakedness brought it to the notice of his other to brothers. He had also gone to the territory of his father- which he is not supposed to.  How do we draw parallel to the present day situation?

Christ's love has covered our weakness/sin.  Are we covering other's weakness or sin? 

Hi Mike,You are welcome to call me Rag, Rags, Ragi (These are the names most of my close friends and members of the family use to call me). So there is no question of taking it as offence or wrong. You are my brother and you are welcome to call me what you want to.  Yes you are right actually what you had in mind and what I was trying to tell is the same. You have already told this before that we have the same thoughts. I think thats one of the reasons which attract me to read your blogs.  The other is Gene my elder brother.

Jairah, I mentioned that one's weakness should be covered. Which means it should not be made public. Also sin. If one is concious of his/her sin, it is between him/her and God. God alone has the right to make them righteous through the blood of Jesus Christ.  We as fellow human beings dont have the right to 'expose' other's sins.  If you had studied about 'reformation' you would accept this statement of mine.  If we 'expose' other's weakness who want to turn from his old ways to the new way, one of the things that we would be indulging in is 'gossipping'. I dont any one with the right senses would agree 'gossipping' is the right of a believer who 'exposes' his/her friend who sins.

I Thank God  Mike for allowing both of us to have the same wavelength. Child, sin, mother of Jairah's comments need a  separate blog.

Jairah, I just happened to read your blog Wet Pants.

I think what we are discussing is something similar.
 

Thank you Ruth - and thanks to Wiersbe and of course the Lord for opening my eyes to this truth. We are covered, it is time to put away shame and enjoy our Father's love shamelessly!

Janell, your comments are always so thoughtful and uplifting (mainly b/c their so thoughtful!)... Thanks!

 Hi Mike & Laura-  When I first read the story I felt Noah was the one who was wrong for getting drunk and naked and passing out in the middle of the tents living-room. I like your interpretation on the story though.
 There is another common interpretation that is not near so nice as yours. In that interpretation Ham, is cursed by Noah, not because he didn't cover him and told his brothers instead. He is cursed because it is, as described in (Lev.18:6-23) an incestuous relationship.

 That's one reason I love the Bible everyone can read it but, no matter what part you've read someone else has a different spin on it. I think God intended it that way so we would always refer to it and always discuss it to keep it fresh in our minds and hearts.

 Great blog.
 God bless you.

      Bob 
 

With due respects to Bob and Golden, I would like to point out the following:

According to Moses in the book of Leviticus, Chapter 18,  One should not 'uncover' the nakedness of close relatives.  In Genesis 9, 22, Ham 'saw' his father's nakedness.  While Noah has the right to 'uncover his nakedness' Ham does not have the right to see his father's nakedness. 

Therefore it should not be inferred that Ham had sexual relationship with his 'father's wife' 

And, after reading some of the commentary here, I can understand why Noah would be tempted to drink. . . .

I am not suggesting that the Hebraism is not true.  But, if it is, the expression's application would be to have intercourse with Noah - not Noah's wife - that would be uncovering the nakedness of your father's wife.  

Also, In Genesis 19:30-36 that expression is not used when referring to the sexual act between Lot's daughter's and him.  If the application was the same (intercourse with the father, and the writer of Genesis is the same person, why is the application not the same.  The preceding verse says that "Noah lay uncovered in his tent" (not an identified Hebraism).  It makes every bit of sense that the Hebraism is not the intended application.

In this case, I'll go with the literal meanings.  Noah was naked and Ham was being an idiot about it.

Hi Mike,

Bob said  There is another common interpretation. I want to ask "what is the source of reference for this information?" 

I perused 5 commentaries on the same subject 1. John Wesley's explanatory notes, 2.Albert Barnes' Note on the Bible, 3.  Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, 4. John Gill's Exposition on the entire Bible and 5. K&D Commentary on the Old Testament.

None of the authors mentioned above had even mentioned anything  in line with this kind of argument. There was no mention at all.

That is the reason then I compared with various versions. Even the Bible translators of the various  versions did not give the impression what was proposed by Bob.

Hence I want to know the source for the common interpretation. It gave me an opportunity to go deeper into the subject and know the "truth". 

  I have to get better at my writing skills or at least meaning what I am typing. lol
  Just to clarify what I was saying, ( I hope anyway).
  What I was referring to was, as Gene said " the expression's application would be to have intercourse with Noah - not Noah's wife - that would be uncovering the nakedness of your father's wife." .
  I have no source nor do I agree with the scenario I stated. Recall I said the interpretation I gave an example of was "not near so nice as yours". It is a commonly used verse by people who argue homosexuality is a sin. I should have said, I guess, homosexual incest, but I just thought that would be understood if anyone read the verses.
 I also said "I like your interpretation on the story though" which in my feeble mind meant the same as, I agree with your version. 
  Your version was exactly what we said at Bible Study the night before was the true meaning. I had told the Bible Study group that night the first sentence I typed to you which was , ' When I first read the story I felt Noah was the one who was wrong for getting drunk and naked and passing out in the middle of the tents living-room". That got a few giggles and then we discussed the true meaning, which is exactly what Mike has said.
  I probably made my stance even more confusing then when I started and that is why I let my wife do the talking.
  Anyway, I apologize if I offended anyone and I hope this clears it up.
  It is a great blog Mike and I thank you for it.
   Peace

Bob, I thought your initial comment, and all your follow-ups (this might be the only one...I lose track), were offered in humility and in a good conversational spirit. I saw your offering "another common interpretation" to mean you'd heard but didn't necessarily agree with it.

The above references to that interpretation were directed mostly at a later comment (which was deleted for other reasons) which claimed emphatically that view was the truth rather than just another interpretation.

No probs Bob - it's all good! A hearty thanks for offering your point of view!

Thanks woman of joy and deborah, can't tell you how much I appreciate hearing from you! deborah, you are far too kind. How interesting that you were just reading that scripture, wouldn't wanna call it a coincidence, would ya? ;-)

Hi Golden,

Proverbs 1:22 is for whom? For you? or for us? Have a blessed Day!! 

Hi Golden

I understand from another blog that you are a man of God.  This is what the bible says and told to us by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.   Mat 5:22  but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.