Was Canaan Cursed for Ham's Sin ??

[kAHANyAH]

Auugghh!!! 1dell!!!!!!!!!!! the verse is telling you the generations of Ishmael are found in the geneology of his 12 sons

1dell said:

Goodness El Toro, you stubborn horned Angus you. bling BLING! I'll make steak outta you yet!

WEll bro this passage is a bit complex I'll tell you why:

The first verse in question:

Gen 25:12 Now these [are] the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:

Notice this verse is on an island by itself and speaks of Yshma'al's parentage: Father Abraham, mother Hagar.

But the very next verse seems a bit isolated by starting off with the word AND:

Gen 25:13 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,...

As if There is a distinction between the too. But I do notice that when speaking of the generations of Yshma'al they never fail to mention his parentage i.e. the first generation. notice that? The sons are mention separate from the generational verse and separate by the word And which implies a new idea for we all know that And is a conjunction combining 2 separate clauses (my english teacher would be proud of a bruva) but I know you wouldn't see it that way El Toro.

Skipping to the final verse in question:

Gen 25:16 These [are] the sons of Ishmael, and these [are] their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.

These are the SONS of Yshma'al again I don't see the author making relation to the generational aspect as these are the generation in totality but further goes on to define these sons as: Their names BY their TOWNS, and by their CASTLES. These 12 princes According to their nations. All things being plural it would only make sense (to me) that we speak of Neboyot we are speaking of the nation which would include one leg of the blood line.

Wheww. But check it out bro, the generation of Yshma'al is given in these verses: Abraham: Gen 1/ Yshma'al Gen 2/ his 12 sons: Gen 3.

You makin a bruva work dis mo'nin dayum!

[1dell]

Because bro, I am saying not the 3rd son, but the 3rd level of SONSSSSS, you were saying that Efrym's 3rd son was being referred to. I am saying ALL of efryms sons are being refered to because they are the 3rd level of the tribe of Joseph. Joseph level 1 / Efrym level 2 / efrym's SONS level 3.

lawd lawd lawd. you owe me a new fanga nail. cuz I done broke about 3 type these long ass messages.

kAH said:

Dude!! that ya remember like a couple of posts ago ? Thats why I said sons = generations. The translators understood a son was to bring about a generation. If it says the sons of the third, they are referrin to the 3rd son bloodline or the GENEOLOGY from the third son. Auugghh!! why no you see this ?

[1dell]

Ok ok, Kah, since bruva got you cryin and thangs. I'll drop it. Hurts to see a grown man cry and whatnot. My bad, but I'm just as stubborn as you, so I don't reniggin shawdy! I'll stick with my story.

ok ok, funk the generations for a hot sec. What did ham DO that make Noah curse CAnaan?

kAH said:

Auugghh!!! 1dell!!!!!!!!!!! the verse is telling you the generations of Ishmael are found in the geneology of his 12 sons

[kAHANyAH]

LOL!!! a'ight we both got the horns on our head signs so we each aint droppin our position on thangs! LOL!! Back to the topic. Well the popular word out on this is ham sodomized No'ah. I never really technically verified it so I will get back to you. Let me peep the story again.

What do you think he did ?

1dell said:

Ok ok, Kah, since bruva got you cryin and thangs. I'll drop it. Hurts to see a grown man cry and whatnot. My bad, but I'm just as stubborn as you, so I don't reniggin shawdy! I'll stick with my story.

ok ok, funk the generations for a hot sec. What did ham DO that make Noah curse CAnaan?

[kAHANyAH]

Nah bros. I said his third son 'cause the third generation is implied since it is understood the third son brings about the entire geneology of the third generation.

1dell said:

Because bro, I am saying not the 3rd son, but the 3rd level of SONSSSSS, you were saying that Efrym's 3rd son was being referred to. I am saying ALL of efryms sons are being refered to because they are the 3rd level of the tribe of Joseph. Joseph level 1 / Efrym level 2 / efrym's SONS level 3.

lawd lawd lawd. you owe me a new fanga nail. cuz I done broke about 3 type these long ass messages.

[1dell]

I believe he slept with one of Noah's concubines

kAH said:

LOL!!! a'ight we both got the horns on our head signs so we each aint droppin our position on thangs! LOL!! Back to the topic. Well the popular word out on this is ham sodomized No'ah. I never really technically verified it so I will get back to you. Let me peep the story again.

What do you think he did ?

[kAHANyAH]

okay. Now how would you fit in the part where the two brothers carry a robe in backward as to not see his nakedness ? who was the robe for ?

1dell said:

I believe he slept with one of Noah's concubines

[1dell]

The same thing did Reuben thing:

Gen 35:22And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

Here is his punishment, also a curse:

Gen 49:4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou [it]: he went up to my couch.

1Ch 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was] the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

or it could have been his own Mother. Which is why Canaan would be the servant of his Uncles because they would want to avenge that hin' 'pots. Canaan would technically be their brother but that would be dishonorable to them. having an Brother/nephew. Canaan is unworthy to share as head tribeman along with Noah's sons.

1dell said:

I believe he slept with one of Noah's concubines

[kAHANyAH]

I dont see how youre connecting reuben's sin with Ham's. Lets go back to the story of the two sons [shem, yapheth]. The robe they carried on their shoulders, who was it for ?

1dell said:

The same thing did Reuben thing:

Gen 35:22And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

Here is his punishment, also a curse:

Gen 49:4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou [it]: he went up to my couch.

1Ch 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was] the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

or it could have been his own Mother. Which is why Canaan would be the servant of his Uncles because they would want to avenge that hin' 'pots. Canaan would technically be their brother but that would be dishonorable to them. having an Brother/nephew. Canaan is unworthy to share as head tribeman along with Noah's sons.

[1dell]

I'm not connecting the stories I am just saying reuben did the same thing and the same thing happened, except he didn't get Billah pregnant

Any way I wrestle with that same thing too. with the blanket and shem and nem. I am thinkin it's a Hebraic euphemism or idiom. I'll have to resolve that, which means I'll have to go into 4th dimensional hebrew to resolve it though.

But we have some elements to work with here:

a naked father who has been uncovered/discovered. and we have a levitical law: Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness.

Where we go from here is anybodies fancy

kAH said:

I dont see how youre connecting reuben's sin with Ham's. Lets go back to the story of the two sons [shem, yapheth]. The robe they carried on their shoulders, who was it for ?

[kAHANyAH]

There is one scripture that may be the missing link. I am not sure it is, didnt get into it yet (watching the 5 deadly veanoms as I type ). Here is the verse. Take a look. It has the servitude, hams line and buttox all roled up in one.

Isaiah 20.4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

1dell said:

I'm not connecting the stories I am just saying reuben did the same thing and the same thing happened, except he didn't get Billah pregnant

Any way I wrestle with that same thing too. with the blanket and shem and nem. I am thinkin it's a Hebraic euphemism or idiom. I'll have to resolve that, which means I'll have to go into 4th dimensional hebrew to resolve it though.

But we have some elements to work with here:

a naked father who has been uncovered/discovered. and we have a levitical law: Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness.

Where we go from here is anybodies fancy

[1dell]

nAH sHawdy how bout this:

Isa 58:7 [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

kAH said:

There is one scripture that may be the missing link. I am not sure it is, didnt get into it yet (watching the 5 deadly veanoms as I type ). Here is the verse. Take a look. It has the servitude, hams line and buttox all roled up in one.

Isaiah 20.4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

[1dell]

Hey bro, gotta question. How did they make an oath in the olden days?

Nevermind I already know:

By taking hold of a penis and swearing on it. Consider Gen 24:2-3,9, 47:29. The euphemism "under the thigh" literally meant "holding the penis." If you took an oath before a witness you would be expected to take hold of the penis of the witness! The witness in all likelihood would be expected to reciprocate! Euphemism’s abound in the Scripture. And of course Rabbis know all about this but Christian teachers have no idea whatever!

What if Khem was a greedy mofo and tried to make an oath with Noah while he was drunk to overthrow the birthright?

What if Khem tried to circumcise noah, because the cutting of the flesh was a way to make a covenant.

[kAHANyAH]

I likes this one. Fits the story line better.

1dell said:

nAH sHawdy how bout this:

Isa 58:7 [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

[kAHANyAH]

Now thats what Im talkin bout! a nikka after mine own heart - you done went esoterics on me!! DEEP ISH!

1dell said:

Hey bro, gotta question. How did they make an oath in the olden days?

Nevermind I already know:

By taking hold of a penis and swearing on it. Consider Gen 24:2-3,9, 47:29. The euphemism "under the thigh" literally meant "holding the penis." If you took an oath before a witness you would be expected to take hold of the penis of the witness! The witness in all likelihood would be expected to reciprocate! Euphemism’s abound in the Scripture. And of course Rabbis know all about this but Christian teachers have no idea whatever!

What if Khem was a greedy mofo and tried to make an oath with Noah while he was drunk to overthrow the birthright?

What if Khem tried to circumcise noah, because the cutting of the flesh was a way to make a covenant.