Was Ham’s Real Sin, Incest With His Mother?


All good cults know ONE thing: SEX SELLS

What better way to win carnal followers than to sauce up the text with a little raunch?

And the Chapel dishes it up real good… everything in Genesis is really a euphemism for something to do with sex. Eve ate an apple? That really means she had sex with Satan. Sons of God marrying the daughters of men? That really means fallen angels raping human women.

In our latest installment we descend further into madness to find Noah uncovered in his tent after getting into grandma’s medicine cabinet. But everything is not as it appears – Noah being uncovered really is a euphemism for Ham having sex with his mother! Take that Jerry Springer!

“And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 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 9:20-24

This passage has absolutely NOTHING to do with incest. Noah literally got drunk from literal wine, from a literal vineyard he planted. He was literally naked in his tent when Ham literally saw him.

Noah acknowledges that he KNEW what HAM had done to HIM. Noah’s wife NEVER enters into this. The sons took a literal garment and RESPECTFULLY covered their father. The nature of Ham’s sin was his lack of reverence and disrespect for Noah.

The bible doesn’t say that Ham uncovered him but that he saw him uncovered. The Chapel likes to use this support text from Leviticus…

“And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” – Leviticus 20:11

The Chapel takes this text in Leviticus and uses it to interpret a very clear passage in Genesis.

The meaning here, uncovered his father’s nakedness is better translated as: exposed his father to shame… look it up in the Strong’s for yourself.

Just one more wicked carnal doctrine that you can throw into the trash bin of hellish false religion.


Author: Timothy Campbell

Independent researcher exposing Joel's Army / Latter-Rain Movement, Christian evangelist and helping to expose the plot of the ages - the church will be here during the great tribulation (or Golden Age of Gaia) and will have resist the beast and his mark...

8 thoughts on “Was Ham’s Real Sin, Incest With His Mother?”

  1. I have searched  strongs and can find no results under “uncovered your fathers nakedness.” am I entering it correctly?


  2. http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1540&t=KJV — this is the entry for uncovered

    http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6172&t=KJV — this is the entry for nakedness

    When Absalom slept with his father’s concubine, he exposed his father to shame. There are multiple definitions for these Hebrew words. Uncovering your father’s nakedness is incest – Ham saw his father uncovered and was irreverent about the whole situation. Two very different things.


  3. Question: what did E.W. Bullinger teach about this? I have the notes for Genesis 9 here – he makes no mention of Ham’s committing incest with Noah’s wife. You would think if he were so astute he would have caught that. Ham saw Noah uncovered in his tent – it did not say that he “uncovered his father’s nakedness”. If you want to read incest into this passage that is your prerogative. You are a Murray acolyte – his interpretation of the bible has such a grip on your mind that you cannot break free.


  4. I’m glad you are amused. I can think of nothing funnier than what the Shepherd’s Chapel teaches on whole host of texts.

    Concerning the sins of the Fathers, what about Exodus 20:5?

    “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,”

    I have very little knowledge of Hebrew but I do know how to not distort entries for Strong’s to make them fit my own pet doctrines. Seems like you like Murray’s technique of abusing the Strong’s and claiming superior knowledge of the Hebrew.

    I watched Murray abuse Strong’s entries and the meaning of Hebrew words for over 20 years.

    Uncover nakedness and see nakedness are two different things. One is a euphemism used one time in Leviticus and it clearly refers to something sexual in the whole context. The other is a clear and straightforward rendering of the Hebrew by the KJV translators.

    The meaning of Ervah is dependent on the context. Since you see it as a passage about incest you have defined this word accordingly.

    The text is very clear and straightforward.


    1.nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda – (Noah was naked, shamefully exposed after getting drunk)
    a. pudenda (implying shameful exposure)
    b. nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour
    c. exposed, undefended (fig.)

    It is a feminine noun. But apparently Ervah is used in reference to a man’s nakedness as well. Particularly because the passage implies “shameful exposure”. The same word is used here and it ain’t talking about women’s panties…

    And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: – Exodus 28:42

    According to your interpretation Ervah should not be used here. Explain that. And explain all the other places in the Hebrew where Ervah is not referring to a woman’s nakedness.

    Look at the other texts where this word is used. And you might want to provide a reference for where Bullinger taught this because it wasn’t in the Companion Bible.

    if seeing = intercourse and nakedness = mother’s… then provide the interpretation for the other elements of the passage as well because your interpretation is far from consistent at this point.

    Shem and Japheth turned backwards so as NOT to see their father’s nakedness. They took a “garment” and covered NOAH’s nakedness. Sorry friend, mock and deride all you want but the text is clear.


  5. There are good reason why Noah would have cursed Canaan that have nothing to do with incest. Why would God curse Canaan for being born of incest when he had nothing to do with it? Perhaps Canaan was already alive and was disrespectful and hateful towards God like his father.


  6. Leviticus uses a Hebraism, Genesis uses clear language with a clear context. You still haven’t dealt with the surrounding contextual proof of the passage. Namely that Ham’s brother’s took a garment and covered Noah’s nakedness. There are other contextual proofs but you have dealt with none of these.

    You haven’t addressed how Hebrew people have traditionally interpreted this passage.

    And pray tell, how did I jump to the New Testament? Or did you just throw that in there thinking I wouldn’t respond to it specifically? I never referenced the New Testament in our discussion of this.

    How do you know that the noun Ervah refers back to the linen breaches and the altar in the passages given? How do you know that those words are feminine? How do you know that Ervah is not referring to the men’s nakedness?

    The word is being used in it’s first sense in the Strong’s…

    a. pudenda (implying shameful exposure)


  7. The sense that you use the word in is context dependent, hence:

    a. pudenda (implying shameful exposure)

    None of the Jewish interpretations of this ever suggest incest. You would have me to believe that they don’t even know their own language. All their interpretations are very clear that Noah is the one who is naked but there are all sorts of suggestions as to what the true sin was. In ancient records looking at another males genitals was a serious offense. The filthy Talmud I suppose comes the closest when they suggest that Ham sodomized Noah, but none of them ever interpreted it as you have.

    I think there’s a little more to this issue with the Hebrew ervah than you would have me believe. But that’s the way Murray and his ilk have learned to do it – he’s the Hebrew scholar and if he interprets it as such and such then his position is unassailable.

    We will continue – your contention is that Ham committed incest, there is enough evidence in the text of scripture to prove that he did not.


  8. I appreciate your perspective on the meaning of this text but we must agree to disagree. You fail to acknowledge that no one in the history of Jewish thought interpreted this passage that way. They were much more skilled in Hebrew than you or I would ever be. If what you say was implicit in the Hebrew text you would think that one of them would said something. Instead we are given a myriad of speculations as to what the true nature of the sin was and they all include Noah, being drunk and naked, in his tent.

    As far as I know this is Murray’s innovation and it is par for the course in his gauntlet of sensationalistic, carnal interpretations of scripture. An article is forthcoming where I will detail specifically how Murray has abused the Strong’s to support his maddening doctrines while claiming to be a biblical and Hebrew authority.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s