neo-x wrote:
No you guys are reading into the text your own analysis. The text is plain, he saw his father didn't cover him, but went and told his brothers and his brothers covered their father. How on earth does this passage mean having sex with his own mother. And if it was sex with mother than why would he go and tell his brothers and then they cover him. This sex theory makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does the Sodomizing theory holds water.
The only fact is, Ham saw his father in a disrespectful way and didn't do anything. He didn't care perhaps. That is what the scriptures say. Nakedness is just an English translation, which you just happen to read in two very different instances and proof texting it all the way, and on top of that not even considering the original tongue.
Sex in Genesis is always implied with words ''and he knew her', 'he went to her', he laid down with her', he took her' etc... From adam to Lot to Joseph. The author of Genesis repeatedly use a construct to imply sex. Even by this degree alone your use of the passage as Ham having sex with his mother is a literal blunder and unnatural fir the author to use. Semantics alone disagree with you.
Not to mention in the O. T, disrespecting your parents, seeing them in their privacy or cursing them is punishable by severe curses, and in some cases, death.
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6
