Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[excreationist]

There are probably a huge number of examples....

This is about Noah and Ham's son Canaan....

Genesis 6:8-9

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.

Genesis 9:20-27

Noah was a man who farmed the land. He decided to plant a field that produced grapes for making wine. When he drank some of the wine, it made him drunk. Then he lay down inside his tent without any clothes on. Ham saw his father naked. Then Ham, the father of Canaan, went outside and told his two brothers. But Shem and Japheth picked up a piece of clothing and laid it across their shoulders. Then they walked backward into the tent. They covered their father’s body. They turned their faces away because they didn’t want to see their father naked.

Then Noah woke up from his sleep that was caused by the wine. He found out what his youngest son had done to him. He said,

“May a curse be put on Canaan!
He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.”

Noah also said,

“May the Lord, the God of Shem, be praised.
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
May God add land to Japheth’s territory.
May Japheth live in the tents of Shem.
And may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

It seems Noah wasn't punished at all... just Ham's son Canaan and his descendants.... in Deuteronomy 20:16-18 it says to wipe out all of the Canaanites (and also Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites) Shem and Japheth were blessed but no mention of Ham.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is.... don't be the son of someone who pissed off their drunken father.

 

[Politesse]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"? The Hebrew Scriptures weren't written to be fairy stories for children, as far as the author were concerned this was just history. And the Canaanites were a subjected social class at the time this account was written, so implied incestuous sodomy and ancient curses are not surprising inclusions.

 

[Elixir]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"?

Why are you assuming he's assuming that there's meant to be a moral? That there's meant to be a moral is just one more thing to not understand. Add it to the fact that the thread title "Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand" can be understood to refer to stories that I don't understand or morality in those stories that I don't understand, and the stack of prior assumptions and their attendant misunderstandings attains unforetold heights.

This is the stuff of religions ...

 

[Politesse]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"?

Why are you assuming he's assuming that there's meant to be a moral? That there's meant to be a moral is just one more thing to not understand. Add it to the fact that the thread title "Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand" can be understood to refer to stories that I don't understand or morality in those stories that I don't understand, and the stack of prior assumptions and their attendant misunderstandings attains unforetold heights.

This is the stuff of religions ...

Why did I assume that? Probably because his closing line was "I'm not sure what the moral of the story is...."

 

[lostone]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"?

Why are you assuming he's assuming that there's meant to be a moral? That there's meant to be a moral is just one more thing to not understand. Add it to the fact that the thread title "Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand" can be understood to refer to stories that I don't understand or morality in those stories that I don't understand, and the stack of prior assumptions and their attendant misunderstandings attains unforetold heights.

This is the stuff of religions ...

Why did I assume that? Probably because his closing line was "I'm not sure what the moral of the story is...."

Religions assert that no understanding is required, just have faith.

 

[Politesse]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"?

Why are you assuming he's assuming that there's meant to be a moral? That there's meant to be a moral is just one more thing to not understand. Add it to the fact that the thread title "Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand" can be understood to refer to stories that I don't understand or morality in those stories that I don't understand, and the stack of prior assumptions and their attendant misunderstandings attains unforetold heights.

This is the stuff of religions ...

Why did I assume that? Probably because his closing line was "I'm not sure what the moral of the story is...."

Religions assert that no understanding is required, just have faith.

Ah, even more assumptions and assertions.

 

[Elixir]

Why did I assume that? Probably because his closing line was "I'm not sure what the moral of the story is...."

Religions assert that no understanding is required, just have faith.

Ah, even more assumptions and assertions.

NOW we're getting somewhere!

 

[excreationist]

Rather than talking about the moral maybe I could have asked why God went along with the curse? I guess because Noah was favoured by God - even after he was drunk and naked....

 

[SIB]

The bible can teach us morals. So can any super hero type story.

I like the bible as a central focus at this point. It connects us to the past. We have been human for some time now. To me, some ape asked, "What am I". The universe answered. As best we could understand understand 2000 years ago anyway.

We are not born sinners. We do not need "saving". We were "created" by the system around us.

We were born ignorant. We are learning. We are evolving. Past that, I don't know much but nothing is keeping score.

The answer is probably in-between fundy think type theist and fundy think type atheist to me.

 

[excreationist]

I think in some Christian kid's material I've watched it says that in the Bible it shows that if you're faithful to God he will bless you.

 

[excreationist]

Does anyone understand why Noah was able to curse Ham's son? (And God went along with it) I think Canaan was completely innocent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"?

Why are you assuming he's assuming that there's meant to be a moral? That there's meant to be a moral is just one more thing to not understand. Add it to the fact that the thread title "Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand" can be understood to refer to stories that I don't understand or morality in those stories that I don't understand, and the stack of prior assumptions and their attendant misunderstandings attains unforetold heights.

This is the stuff of religions ...

Why did I assume that? Probably because his closing line was "I'm not sure what the moral of the story is...."

I think I am in-between you both on this one. So, the purpose of the story could possibly be an explanation of things....like, say, the Tower of Babel story or the creation myth of Eden. The explanatory part could be about how different ethnic groups came into being with their different statuses of special vs enemy or whatever.

That said, there is a proposition among fundamentalists of inerrancy of the bible and so I think it's in part from that, that it is inferred not merely a description, but also this is how it ought to have been. That is strengthened by saying Noah was blameless. And in some fundy circles, they put rules into practice about the nakedness of a man. I recall stories told on the side about how Ham's offspring became darkies and that was meant to be some kind of moral advice.

So, I think it may be logical to infer an _ancillary_ moral of the story. It might or might not be the intent, but if Noah is blameless and Hamites/Canaanites deserved their fates, then Ham/Canaan deserved his curse as well. So, what did he do wrong? Look at another man naked even accidentally? Trash-talking after? Not showing enough deference to the established hierarchy? All of the above? Something else?

Here is a Christian trying to derive moral lessons from it:

What Is the Curse of Ham and What Can We Learn from It?

We can conclude that the Curse of Ham did occur, but the more appropriate name would be the Curse of Canaan. Therein lies part of the confusion that would affect believers for many years to come.

www.crosswalk.com

 

[Elixir]

I love biblical inerrancy. My grocery list is also inerrant, and infinitely more useful. But any inerrancy is good inerrancy, right? Three different people can read the same inerrant Bible passage and derive three different meanings, and all three meanings must be correct even if they are contradictory. Because - inerrancy. Anyone who denies this truly magical quality of the bible is on the brink of realizing the most profound Truth that the Bible has to offer: the Truth that it is a BOOK, not a magic document.

 

[excreationist]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"? The Hebrew Scriptures weren't written to be fairy stories for children, as far as the author were concerned this was just history.....

So did the author also believe that it was historical that Noah lived to be 950?

 

[Politesse]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"? The Hebrew Scriptures weren't written to be fairy stories for children, as far as the author were concerned this was just history.....

So did the author also believe that it was historical that Noah lived to be 950?

Surely.

 

[excreationist]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"? The Hebrew Scriptures weren't written to be fairy stories for children, as far as the author were concerned this was just history.....

So did the author also believe that it was historical that Noah lived to be 950?

Surely.

If Genesis is literal that means that the global Flood was in about 2350 BC

Timeline for the Flood

So when exactly was the Flood? There are two possible ways of calculating the date. David Wright, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

While the Pyramids of Giza were apparently built before that.... and after the Flood there were apparently only 8 humans in the whole world....
So the author would still believe that is all historical?

 

[Learner]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"?

Why are you assuming he's assuming that there's meant to be a moral? That there's meant to be a moral is just one more thing to not understand. Add it to the fact that the thread title "Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand" can be understood to refer to stories that I don't understand or morality in those stories that I don't understand, and the stack of prior assumptions and their attendant misunderstandings attains unforetold heights.

This is the stuff of religions ...

Why did I assume that? Probably because his closing line was "I'm not sure what the moral of the story is...."

Religions assert that no understanding is required, just have faith.

For some religions perhaps. In particular to 'this' faith, i.e. Jesus or God of the bible. Understanding is required.

Continuous study is promoted. A reason for this for example - like when Daniel didn't understand his own prophecy, he was told it was for the last generations - as it will be them, who will discover what is in those prophecies, with an understanding much further gained, since the time of Daniel.

 

[Politesse]

Why are you assuming there's meant to be a "moral"? The Hebrew Scriptures weren't written to be fairy stories for children, as far as the author were concerned this was just history.....

So did the author also believe that it was historical that Noah lived to be 950?

Surely.

If Genesis is literal that means that the global Flood was in about 2350 BC

Timeline for the Flood

So when exactly was the Flood? There are two possible ways of calculating the date. David Wright, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

While the Pyramids of Giza were apparently built before that.... and after the Flood there were apparently only 8 humans in the whole world....
So the author would still believe that is all historical?

The authors of the book of Genesis had no knowledge of the archaeological evidence you're referring to, nor were they likely counting years in the way that AiG is wont to do; if they had any knowledge whatsoever of Egypt's history, it could only have been though the likewise mythical terms of Egypt's own court histories and official propaganda. If those histories conflicted, presumably our Israelite scribes would simply declare the Egyptian account to be wrong and that of their king and priesthood to be correct. As, indeed, many religiously minded people still do today.

 

[excreationist]

The authors of the book of Genesis had no knowledge of the archaeological evidence you're referring to,

They would have an idea of how old the Egyptian culture was and whether it is realistic for their huge population to come from 8 people a while earlier (or later).

nor were they likely counting years in the way that AiG is wont to do;

Why do you think it is that Methuselah and Lamech died within a couple of years before the Flood? Is it because it was history? I think the reason is that the scribes edited the lifespans until it didn't contradict the Flood story...

If it is all based on real history why is that there were many changes in the ages based on different manuscript versions?

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if they had any knowledge whatsoever of Egypt's history, it could only have been though the likewise mythical terms of Egypt's own court histories and official propaganda. If those histories conflicted, presumably our Israelite scribes would simply declare the Egyptian account to be wrong and that of their king and priesthood to be correct. As, indeed, many religiously minded people still do today.

I think it is reasonable for them to know how many centuries ago the Pyramids were made.... if they can record all of the genealogy ages (age at fatherhood and death).

 

[Politesse]

If it is all based on real history why is that there were many changes in the ages based on different manuscript versions?

What do you think history is, exactly?