The Sin of Noah?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is possible we and many Bible students have had the interpretation of this passage way wrong for many years.
...
Yes, Noah cursed Canaan. Yes, the curse had effect. But not in the way we have traditionally looked at it. Noah produced the rebel Canaan became by his harsh, reckless words. That's the lesson, I believe.

Fathers, watch what you say and how you say it. By speaking in anger, you may produce the very bad child you think you are trying to prevent.

Interesting perspective. Nell posted something along similar lines: "This probably wasn’t the first time they had seen questionable behavior in the family. There had also likely been sin for which Noah needed to repent to his sons. They had been cramped up together on a boat for at least 1 or 2 years! It seems that Shem and Japheth had learned a lesson that Ham had not learned."

Last year, I watched the Noah movie (with Russell Crowe) when it came out. I was initially a bit bothered by the portray of the family dynamics, however, the more I've thought about it, the more I've realize that it probably wasn't all smooth sailing (pun intended) for Noah and his family.

I don't want to spoil the plot, but I will just say that in the movie, Noah is portrayed as someone who is at odds with his family. Maybe people don't like this view of Noah, but I think there is some truth to it. If family tensions had anything to do with what happened with Ham, then that would be an important part of understanding the meaning of Noah's curse on Canaan.

The Bible doesn't tell the whole story of what happened, so people should be careful about how they attach meaning to it. Nee was all too eager to claim that it was about deputy authority.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The Bible doesn't tell the whole story of what happened, so people should be careful about how they attach meaning to it.

I agree. I just have a problem with interpretations that whitewash Noah and say that God honored his curse because Noah was "the man." I don't see that supported biblically.

Rather I see that Noah abused his position, the weight of which served to produce the curse he pronounced.

I have heard it taught several times that for most of us, our basic view of God is based on how we view our father. If our father was mean, we tend to see God as mean. If our father was loving, it is easy to see God that way, too.

How do you think Canaan viewed God, based on the behavior of his grandfather, God's rep? Canaan was responsible for his behavior as an adult. Anger with imperfect parents is no long-term excuse for rebellion against God. But Noah's curse is 180 degrees contrary to how the NT tells us to treat children.

We don't know everything, but based on what we do know Canaan got a bum deal. So that's the logical interpretation. What doesn't make sense is an interpretation that doesn't jibe with the loving and just nature of God. And things like "God backs up deputy authorities no matter what" or "the curse of Ham, Canaan, or whomever" do not.