Re: [TruthTalk] Graven images

[Wm. Taylor]

I'm "cleaning house" a little today and ran across this post I saved from way back in February. My point of interest concerns the "uncovering of Noah." I suggest you all look up the biblical connotations of this term "to uncover." The offence was a bit more violating than anything so non-physical as just taking a peek. A lack of respect and dishonoring certainly, extremely unloving, I don't disagree, but let's not make Noah the pervert here and accuse him of anything too major in terms of over-reacting, before we rule out the possibility that just maybe the curse does fit the crime.   Bill From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:39 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Graven images   Blaine: When Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, Noah,  Noah laid a curse on him that was to be passed on to each succeeding generation.   This seems like some kind of major over-reaction, does it not?   If Ham had simply gone into Noah's tent and pulled the bed covers off him, and thus exposed his naked body, I see no reason why such an incidental act would elicit a curse upon Ham.      Judy: Ham was not honoring and respecting his Father. He not only stood and took a good look himself rather than covering his Father, he went and got his brothers to have a look also.  Noah wasn't being vengeful, he spoke prophetically.  The problem wasn't a naked male body, the problem was with love and respect.