Was Canaan Cursed for Ham's Sin ??

[1dell]

Gen 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.

Gotta ask ourselves why is Khem/Ham being singled out here? Why is it mentioned that he is the Father of Canaan? I guess the following versus are gonna tell us why.

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

hmm, so it was thru them that we have today's population. They are the forefathers of humankind as we know it.

Gen 9:20 And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

N'akh took to the occupation of Adam and Abel, a farmer and had him a grape patch

Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Ok Here we go, he was drunk and uncovered in his tent. hmmm. We have a drunk and uncovered man.

Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Here we have Khem again being identified by his son. Why are they doing this? Oh so to be uncovered means to be naked? hmm. And Khem saw that his father was naked and ran to tell his 2 brothers. Thats a sin?

Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

Shem and Yfet to a blanket or something and walked backwards into N'akh's tent while he was naked and drunk so they could not see their father drunk and naked and laid the blanky over top him so to cover his naked drunk body.

Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

when N'akh sobered up he knew what his younger son (khem) had done to him. What did Khem do? Just saw his father naked? whose fault was that? who told N'akh to leave his tent unsecured while he was naked. Is that Khem's fault? Is this enough to curse a man? Or maybe N'akh was still a little hung over or drunk when he pronounced the curse

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

why is Canaan being cursed? the only time we hear about him is when his father, khem is mentioned "hAM THE FATHER OF Canaan Is N'akh that unjust as to curse a man who had nothing do with something that was really his fault?

Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

I guess they are being blessed because of how they handled the situation by covering up their old man. All in All this makes as much sense as IHaWaH getting ready to Kill Moshe for not circumcising his son.

From this all we can gather is that Noah got drunk and butt naked chillin in the middle of his tent and his son Ham rolled up on him and went to tell his brothers about their naked father and when his brothers heard about it they saught to cover up their father so he wouldn't be naked and drunk. Then when noah sobers up he curses CAnaan because Ham saw him naked. Then he blesses Ham's brothers because they covered his nakedness and didn't look at it."

That doesn't make a bit of sense. Doesn't make any rational sense. Either the people back then were extremely sensitive to being seen naked or there is some secret meaning to being naked. Perhaps the nakedness thing stems from Adam and one of the first things he did after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to cover up his nakedness with some fig leaves.

[kAHANyAH]

Ham sodomized father No'ah . That is how No'ah knew what was done unto him - He was soar in his bottom.

I give yall a taste of my version of events tonite when I RETURN!

[CoUrTnEy]

sometimes (in my lack of knowlege) it's hard to know truth from bulljank but i always thought that when the son was being cursed for the sins of the father it was done to the first born?? but canaan was the last born wasn't he? therefore it would not make much sense for canaan to be cursed for something Ham did (i.e. ham sodomizing his father).. nah mean?

[1dell]

hERE IS one way to tell, the person who is telling the truth, hides nothing, they will give you moor than one verse to make their point, they will keep the verses in context, they will provide all the information they can, and it will make sense. some times cleverly make sense. It won't be too hard.

Those who are lying are just the opposite. It's moor complex than it needs to be in order to trick the mind into confusion. Lies come disquised in intelligent sounding words hoping to bypass one's reasoning faculties in order to appear truthful. Lies are difficult to grasp with one's innderstanding because they defy the laws of truth.

CoUrTnEy said:

sometimes (in my lack of knowlege) it's hard to know truth from bulljank but i always thought that when the son was being cursed for the sins of the father it was done to the first born?? but canaan was the last born wasn't he? therefore it would not make much sense for canaan to be cursed for something Ham did (i.e. ham sodomizing his father).. nah mean?

[CoUrTnEy]

what are your thoughts on what i said about canaan being the youngest and such??

1dell said:

hERE IS one way to tell, the person who is telling the truth, hides nothing, they will give you moor than one verse to make their point, they will keep the verses in context, they will provide all the information they can, and it will make sense. some times cleverly make sense. It won't be too hard.

Those who are lying are just the opposite. It's moor complex than it needs to be in order to trick the mind into confusion. Lies come disquised in intelligent sounding words hoping to bypass one's reasoning faculties in order to appear truthful. Lies are difficult to grasp with one's innderstanding because they defy the laws of truth.

[kAHANyAH]

Numbers 14.18, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

The above verse cites the law allowing YHWH to administer karma or punishment (thru the gene) of the the fathers upon their sons in the 3rd-4th generation.

Canaan was the 4th son (4th generation) of Ham and is the reason why the curse of ham - according to law fell upon him...

Genesis 10.6, And the sons of Ham; [1] Cush, and [2] Mizraim, and [3] Phut, and [4] Canaan.

[CoUrTnEy]

thank you for clearing THAT up for me.. im not sure where i got that first born thing from.. but i know i heard it somewhere.

kAH said:

Numbers 14.18, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

The above verse cites the law allowing YHWH to administer karma or punishment (thru the gene) of the the fathers upon their sons in the 3rd-4th generation.

Canaan was the 4th son (4th generation) of Ham and is the reason why the curse of ham - according to law fell upon him...

Genesis 10.6, And the sons of Ham; [1] Cush, and [2] Mizraim, and [3] Phut, and %5

[CoUrTnEy]

thank you for clearing THAT up for me.. im not sure where i got that first born thing from.. but i know i heard it somewhere.

kAH said:

Numbers 14.18, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

The above verse cites the law allowing YHWH to administer karma or punishment (thru the gene) of the the fathers upon their sons in the 3rd-4th generation.

Canaan was the 4th son (4th generation) of Ham and is the reason why the curse of ham - according to law fell upon him...

Genesis 10.6, And the sons of Ham; [1] Cush, and [2] Mizraim, and [3] Phut, and [4] Canaan.

[1dell]

Actually, Canaan is not 4th generation. He is 2nd generation. He is only the 4th child. The 4th generation would be Canaan's grandson.

What about the youngest child Courtney? The scripture doesn't make that distinction. It says Younger, not Youngest.

[kAHANyAH]

Canaan is the 4th son/generation within Ham's bloodline. Your sons were your generations (generation -> GENE<-ration). The following will illustrate how the hebrews understood generations...

Gen 11:27 Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat [1] Abram, [2] Nahor, and [3] Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

There are many other ref. that explain generations but this one will suffice. If you notice the verse is saying the sons of Terah are the generations within Terah' bloodline. Terah has 3 generations. Those are his generations. Abram would be the first, Nahor second, Haran third. Lot would be the grandson to continue that bloodline of Terah in his generations.

And of course a simple psonix - Generations -> Generate sons[/color]

1dell said:

Actually, Canaan is not 4th generation. He is 2nd generation. He is only the 4th child. The 4th generation would be Canaan's grandson.

What about the youngest child Courtney? The scripture doesn't make that distinction. It says Younger, not Youngest.

[1dell]

Bro I hear what you are saying but I must protest:

Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full.

Gen 50:23 And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third [generation]: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees.

What have we here? Read those scriptures in context please and they will shed moor innerstanding. If we follow your rules for 4th generation then there would be no need for Gen 15:16 to have been written for the "4th generation" would have surely already existed and the iniquity of the amorites would have been fulfilled. Be we know that the iniquity of the Amorites wasn't fulfilled until Moshe annem came on the scene. That was some time after About the time of a 4th generation.

Now the 2nd scripture:

Gen 50:23 And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third [generation]: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees.

Yoseph, saw his Grandchildren from Efrayim which are concidered by scripture to be the 3rd generation. And that works for me because If Yosef is first generation, Then Efrayim would be 2nd, and Efrayim's offspring would be the 3rd of which is spoken of here.

So again, Canaan is 2nd generation, at best 3rd generation if we count N'akh as 1st generation, but we are speaking of the sins of the father, the father being Khem, so from him Canaan would be the 2nd generation

kAH said:

Canaan is the 4th son/generation within Ham's bloodline. Your sons were your generations (generation -> GENE<-ration). The following will illustrate how the hebrews understood generations...

Gen 11:27 Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat [1] Abram, [2] Nahor, and [3] Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

There are many other ref. that explain generations but this one will suffice. If you notice the verse is saying the sons of Terah are the generations within Terah' bloodline. Terah has 3 generations. Those are his generations. Abram would be the first, Nahor second, Haran third. Lot would be the grandson to continue that bloodline of Terah in his generations.

And of course a simple psonix - Generations -> Generate sons

[/color]

[/quote]

[1dell]

oH YEAH, that verse you mention includes 3 generations.

Terah

Abram Nahor Haran

Lot

Those are the generations of Terah from the first Gen to the 3rd. If Lot had not been included then it would have been just the SONS of Terah. This scripture mentions 2 generations beneath him.

kAH said:

Canaan is the 4th son/generation within Ham's bloodline. Your sons were your generations (generation -> GENE<-ration). The following will illustrate how the hebrews understood generations...

Gen 11:27 Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat [1] Abram, [2] Nahor, and [3] Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

There are many other ref. that explain generations but this one will suffice. If you notice the verse is saying the sons of Terah are the generations within Terah' bloodline. Terah has 3 generations. Those are his generations. Abram would be the first, Nahor second, Haran third. Lot would be the grandson to continue that bloodline of Terah in his generations.

And of course a simple psonix - Generations -> Generate sons

[/color]

[/quote]

[kAHANyAH]

okay 1dell. My initial position is correct from my vantage point. I manage to locate a scripture that explains exactly how to measure generations. Take a look yourself...

Gen 25. 12 - 16

12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.


Basically 1dell, a generation is a son who will bring about a bloodline and establish a tribe/nation in his father's name. Lets say for instance you got 4 sons. That means you have 4 generations or 4 sons to establish 4 bloodlines or tribes or nations. According to the above passage Ishmael has 12 generations to his name.

I will break down the 4th generation of the iniquity of the amorites in the next post.

[1dell]

Ok bro, when I see this I don't see Ishmael having 12 generations nor is the scripture teaching this or it would have said that instead of 12 princes.

These are 2nd generation Yshma'alites and just as Canaan is also the NAME of a nation, so too are these men and names and the scriptures would confirm that.

According to your logic, every 3rd or 4th son would receive the wrath of the Most High. According to your logic use some scripture to prove that.

Even then that does not negate how speaketh Gen 50:23 And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third [generation]: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees.

if 3rd generation means 3rd son, then yosef only had 2 sons but the 3rd generation is Efrayim's son which is exactly how we count generations today. Yosef 1st Gen, Efrayim 2nd Gen, Efrayim's son 3rd Gen.

Also too keep in mind bro, that the word Generation, Toldah in Ibry:

1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies

a) account of men and their descendants

1) genealogical list of one's descendants

2) one's contemporaries

3) course of history (of creation etc)

b) begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

It's better translated as geneology rather than generations.

And perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier but that verse in Exodus 20 where it's says "to the 3rd and 4th generation that hate me..." Well the word Generation is not even in that scripture, it's italicized meaning that it's not in the scripture but has been added.

kAH said:

okay 1dell. My initial position is correct from my vantage point. I manage to locate a scripture that explains exactly how to measure generations. Take a look yourself...

Gen 25. 12 - 16

12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.


Basically 1dell, a generation is a son who will bring about a bloodline and establish a tribe/nation in his father's name. Lets say for instance you got 4 sons. That means you have 4 generations or 4 sons to establish 4 bloodlines or tribes or nations. According to the above passage Ishmael has 12 generations to his name.

I will break down the 4th generation of the iniquity of the amorites in the next post.

[kAHANyAH]

i will explain joseph in a seperate posting. I dont want to get all this muddled up. 1dell, the passage tells you what's a generation. Look again and this time pay close attn. to how the passage begins and how it ends. I will highlite it for you so you can get the sense of what its saying...


Gen 25. 12 - 16

12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.


The subject in the passage deals explicitly and solely with the generation of ISHMAEL. The passage serves no other purpose save that. Now if you read the end of the passage, it ends off with saying these be the sons of Ismael, by their names, towns, castles and nations - 12 princes over them. 1dell, come on now, its telling you the generations of ismael consisted of 12 nations which came about from 12 of his sons. Dont you see ?

As for the visiting the iniquity every 3rd generation. This doesn't apply to all people. Only to those who god wants to curse or bless. The intermediaries are not part of that law clause.

I will explain the joseph in the nxt post.

1dell said:

Ok bro, when I see this I don't see Ishmael having 12 generations nor is the scripture teaching this or it would have said that instead of 12 princes.

These are 2nd generation Yshma'alites and just as Canaan is also the NAME of a nation, so too are these men and names and the scriptures would confirm that.

According to your logic, every 3rd or 4th son would receive the wrath of the Most High. According to your logic use some scripture to prove that.

Even then that does not negate how speaketh Gen 50:23 And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third [generation]: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees.

if 3rd generation means 3rd son, then yosef only had 2 sons but the 3rd generation is Efrayim's son which is exactly how we count generations today. Yosef 1st Gen, Efrayim 2nd Gen, Efrayim's son 3rd Gen.

Also too keep in mind bro, that the word Generation, Toldah in Ibry:

1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies

a) account of men and their descendants

1) genealogical list of one's descendants

2) one's contemporaries

3) course of history (of creation etc)

b) begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

It's better translated as geneology rather than generations.

And perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier but that verse in Exodus 20 where it's says "to the 3rd and 4th generation that hate me..." Well the word Generation is not even in that scripture, it's italicized meaning that it's not in the scripture but has been added.