Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Re: .0  Richard

>Question:  Before Noah sent out a dove, he sent out a raven.  Why?

Because in one flood story (J) he sent out a dove and in the other (P) he
sent out a raven, according to Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?".

				-- Bob

    Ah, thank you, Bob.  It clicks now.  I'll have to get a copy of that
    book!
    
    As long as I'm at it though, perhaps you can answer this: A little
    later, after the flood, our pious Noah gets himself drunk, gets naked
    and passes out in a tent.  One of his sons sees him in this condition
    and goes and tells his brothers.  The remaining two sons back up to
    their father with blankets to avoid the seeing him and cover Noah up.
    When Noah comes to, he curses not only the son who saw him naked, but
    generations of this son's descendants; the Canaanites, as I recall.
    (And my kids think *I'm* severe!!)
    
    What is behind this story??  What is the story trying to tell us?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.2

	Ham should have covered his father's shame, not mocked him.

ace

From "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", pages 42-45:

	  Once the Flood story is done, the writers of Genesis turn to the
	task of giving the names of the descendants of Noah.  These, in
	almost every case, represent tribes or nations.  It was common for
	ancient tribes to call themselves after the name of an ancestor
	(real or mythical).  In fact, if a tribe was known by some name,
	it was assumed that it was because the members were descended from
	an ancestory of that name.  (An ancestor from whom a tribe
	receives its name is an eponym of that tribe.)

	  Related tribes could be described as descending from eponyms who
	were brothers, and whose father was a still broader eponym. ...

	  In this spirit, the Book of Genesis describes the immediate
	descendants of Noah:

	    Genesis 9:18.  And the sons of Noah ... were Shem, and Ham,
	  and Japeth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

	  The three sons of Noah represent the three great divisions of
	the people known to the ancient writers of the Bible. ...

	  The descendants of Ham are described as inhabiting chiefly the
	corner of Africa adjacent to Asia. ...

	  The people inhabiting the land (Canaanites) at the time the
	Hebrews moved in spoke a Semitic language and had a culture
	related to that of the Tigris-Euphrates region.  By modern
	terminology, the Canaanites were distinctly Semites.

	  However, Genesis 9:18 goes out of its way to specify that "Ham
	is the father of Canaan".  The reason for that is a simple one.
	Some three centuries prior to the Hebrew occupation of Canaan, the
	land had been conquered by Egyptian armies and for a long time
	formed part of the Egyptian Empire.  Since Egypt was the most
	important of the Hamitic nations it seemed reasonable, according
	to the standards of the time, to describe Canaan as a son of Ham.

	  The end of the ninth chapter of Genesis relates a tradition in
	which Noah, offended by his second son, Ham, curses him and
	condemns him and his son, Canaan, to servitude to his brothers.
	This reflects the fact that at the time Genesis was being reduced
	to writing, the Canaanites were indeed reduced to servitude by the
	Israelites, who were descendants of Shem.

	  Some modern writers seem to think that Ham represents the Negro
	peoples and that this chapter can be used to justify Negro
	slavery.  This is the purest piffle.  Neither Ham, Canaan, nor any
	of their named descendants were viewed as Negroes by the Biblical
	writers.

    .3
    
    My son has seen me undressed occasionally.  There has been no shame
    in it.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .4  That makes sense, Bob.  Thanks, again.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  .2

  When Noah aoke from his wine and found out what his
  youngest son had done to him  (Gen 9:24)

This is very interesting.  I believe that it was in Hebrew
class that I heard this discussed.  The term translated
"youngest son" can also mean "grandson".  The youngest
son was Japheth, not Ham (the middle son) or Canaan
(Noah's grandson).  Therefore, the translation grandson
fits much better here than youngest son.

The story does not say exactly what Canaan did.  It says
that Ham saw his father's nakedness, but Noah takes no
action whatever against Ham (either in word or deed),
so we should not assume that Ham did something wrong.
Something was certainly done wrong and by Canaan.  I'm
not particularly into speculation.

Collis

Genesis (KJV)
6:10  And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11  The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was
filled with �violence.�
6:12  And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was
corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come
before me; for the earth is filled with �violence� through them;
and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Notice how God's rationale for destruction is connected to human violence.

Richard

    actually it's because of the sin condition in man's heart (Genesis
    6:5).

Genesis 6:5  
    And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
 every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    Richard:
    
    Heard a message on this a few days ago.  If you notice, the depravity
    of mankind is exemplified in Genesis three when it speaks of the
    descendents of Adam.  While Adam was made in God's likeness, Seth was
    made in Adam's likeness, hence the beginning of the spiral down!!
    
    -Jack

>    actually it's because of the sin condition in man's heart (Genesis
>    6:5).

>Genesis 6:5  
>    And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
> every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

It's this easy for us to dismiss violence?

Richard

        violence is a symptom of man's sin condition.

    Which was also my point.  Violence should not be dismissed at all; but
    violence is a fruit of the root!
    
    -Jack

So let's go over there and  teach Saddam a lesson!