[KJBPrincess]

Good post, George! That is an awesome testimony!

[Brother Tim]

I've heard of a number of couples who were so close that they could tell what each other was thinking. Then I met one fellow who had gone a step farther; his wife told him what to think!

[Kiwi Christian]

Originally Posted by George

#1. We are from different "races": She = Filipina & I am Caucasian...

Why do suppose it has been this way for 47+ years? Because it was genuine "love" to begin with, and there was a definite "commitment" on both of our parts to MARRIAGE (God's Institution) FIRST, and each other SECOND. And whenever our love and devotion to each other may have "faltered" (and it has on a very few occasions), our COMMITMENT to God and to our marriage (God's Institution) has carried us through.

Praise the Lord for a marriage like that! amen.

I too am married to a Filipina lady, and I am Caucasian. Granted we have not been married for the great length of time you have Bro. George, but so far we are on par with the kind of marriage you describe, and it's a wonderful blessing. Having those priorities right is paramount, God 1st, each other 2nd. Thankfully we were both Christians when we met and our love for God together has only been increasing since that time.

[Kiwi Christian]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Kiwi said,And claiming a homosexual act isn't speculation??

MC claimed,Talk about wild speculation!

Scott "speculated",
Clearly wrong by the verse evidence.

The REAL FACTS are that we JUST DON'T KNOW exactly what happened, and adding to where the Scriptures are silent often leads to erroneous conclusions.

I'm happy to speculate and for others to do so, and I believe thinking outside the square is healthy for the Bible student, just as long as it's done with sound reasoning and comparing scripture with scripture.

There are many issues that are 'gray' and that we will not agree on, but let us respect one anothers opinions/beliefs even if they are based upon speculation.

[Brother Tim]

"Speculation" about silent places in the Scriptures is to be done very cautiously and a set of doctrines or beliefs should never be based on those speculations. I believe that a subtle attempt has been made in this thread to introduce the idea that somehow those of black African decent are inferior based on the curse of Cainaan. It has been tried elsewhere. That is an example of the danger of speculation.

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

"Speculation" about silent places in the Scriptures is to be done very cautiously and a set of doctrines or beliefs should never be based on those speculations. I believe that a subtle attempt has been made in this thread to introduce the idea that somehow those of black African decent are inferior based on the curse of Cainaan. It has been tried elsewhere. That is an example of the danger of speculation.

1) Africans are descended from Cush, Canaan's brother, not Canaan himself, so saying that Canaan's curse was blackness is ridiculous. As far as we know, the Canaanites were white-skinned!

2) God never cursed anyone in Genesis 9. He blessed Noah and told him to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth: NOAH did the cursing. Noah did not have the power to cause one person or line of descendants to be "inferior" to another. God may just have honored Noah's curse, but He didn't change the DNA of those people just because.

3) From that, there are two explanations for the black-colored skin of the African race (and Australian Aboriginals, not to mention Micronesians!): either, like had been taught for years, Cain's curse was blackness, and his dark-skinned line was continued through Ham's line because he married a Cainite wife; or the skin change is completely due to the natural affects of melanin and the sun's rays because of the geographical location.

Also note that Ishmael was half Hamite because of Abraham's relationship with Hagar, an Egyptian; therefore the Middle Eastern people are more Hamite than Shemite (excluding Iran: they are Aryan/Caucasian)!

That's what it boils down to: God never blessed slavery, He simply allowed it. I don't think God looked kindly upon American slavery (though, truth be told, only 1% of slaves in the New World even came to the US!!) because under the New Covenant, God largely did away with the things that people used to justify slavery. All humans are equal in Christ; I don't believe that we are created equal (socially-speaking, not genetics), but we all have equal opportunity in this life to make something of ourselves.

[Luke]

Has anyone heard the theory that Ham fornicated with his father's wife and then boasted to his brothers...

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Luke

Has anyone heard the theory that Ham fornicated with his father's wife and then boasted to his brothers...

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

Mentioned here and addressed here.

[scott]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Christian

An act of adultery? Nice try, BUT the nakedness of Noah is plainly defined in the text as his own nakedness and not that of his wife.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

Noah was plainly drunk and naked, his two sons covered his naked body with a garment. The Leviticus application of Noah's wife being his nakedness does not fit in this context.

I've been away for a while....while it is true that we "see through a glass darkly" in many areas, I also believe faith and common sense go a long way.....when you say, "nice try, but"....I'll just say, I'm not the only one who believes this was an act of adultery....I was taught this by a man who knows more about the Bible than you and I put together....as far as wording, you aren't reading what you wrote--in other words, what is Noah's nakedness....read this again, please.....The Bible cleary states:

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

Now, the Bible says Ham saw his fathers nakedness....I'll ask a simple question, in lieu of Leviticus 18:8 what is "his fathers nakedness"????

God bless....Scott

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by scott

I've been away for a while....while it is true that we "see through a glass darkly" in many areas, I also believe faith and common sense go a long way.....when you say, "nice try, but"....I'll just say, I'm not the only one who believes this was an act of adultery....I was taught this by a man who knows more about the Bible than you and I put together....as far as wording, you aren't reading what you wrote--in other words, what is Noah's nakedness....read this again, please.....The Bible cleary states:

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

Now, the Bible says Ham saw his fathers nakedness....I'll ask a simple question, in lieu of Leviticus 18:8 what is "his fathers nakedness"????

God bless....Scott

In my opinion Brother Scott, the scripture is clearly stating “thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife.”

“The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8).

As far as the statement, “…it is thy father's nakedness.” We should first consider what "it" refers to. I believe "it" refers to "the nakedness of thy father's wife." You might consider these verses as an explanation for the phrase, "...it is thy father's nakedness.”

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31).

Regarding Ham...

“And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him” (Genesis 9:21-24).

Kiwi Christian on post #30 wrote: Noah got drunk and naked, Ham saw his father's nakedness, when Noah awoke he knew what Ham "HAD DONE UNTO HIM". Ham DID something to Noah; this strongly implies an act, which is more than a 'look'. If Ham only looked at him then how did Noah know it when he awoke?

An act of fornication is the likely conclusion (we are Bible believers so I need not run the references connecting drunkeness, nakedness and fornication), what are the other alternatives and explanations?

Here’s my answer, Kiwi Christian. Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Let’s say, God forbid, last week I looked upon “Gorgeous Gertrude” to lust after her in my heart. What had I DONE UNTO HER? I looked, I lusted, and I committed adultery in my heart. I did not touch her with anything but my eyes. That is what I did and I am guilty!

What did Ham do? “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father….”

Rather than speculate exactly "how" Noah knew Ham "...saw the nakedness of his father," or read into the words "...and knew what his younger son had done unto him," we should simply believe what the Bible says. “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father….” and Noah "...knew what his younger son had done unto him."