Noah's curse on Ham's seed

(This file was written by someone else and I've edited it for brevity and content,
CAUTION, there is very plain language within the text)

Genesis 9:20-24 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 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. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

To deal with this curse we must have all of the known facts on the table and deal with them as a whole not just scattered parts. Too much hit or miss study of the scripture will only make a correct conclusion that much harder to reach.

The question is: what was Ham's sin that brought a curse down upon his entire race through his children?

1.) The sin of sodomy is the most immediate answer based on the above four verses.

2.) The sin of forced incest (rape of Ham's biological mother) is proposed by using numerous scriptures in conjunction with the above four.

3.) The sin of rape of the Father's wife (not necessarily Ham's biological mother).

4.) the sin? of looking on a drunken naked daddy.

Now the question is what saith the scripture? It certainly cannot be all of the above conclusions even though the Bible teacher may teach all of them to cover the bases and make sure his student is appraised of all possibilities. Our question as students is what pray tell is the definitive answer, if it can be known? Having a thirst for the things of God only to come upon a problem that one has to settle for a "maybe" is disheartening at best and frustrating at worst. It could be this or that or some other interpretation, will leave the student strangely thirsty when coming away from the scripture. Can we get an answer with some deep digging? Let us try

What is the sin of sodomy? In the 1828 Webster's dictionary we find:

SOD'OMITE, n. 1. An inhabitant of Sodom. 2. One guilty of sodomy. SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature.

In the American Heritage dictionary 1969,  sodomite, One who practices sodomy. Sodomite, An inhabitant of Sodom. Sodomy, 1. Anal copulation of one male with an another 2. In some legal usage, anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex, or any copulation with an animal.

(definitely some unnatural act involving sex)

 Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

This of course is the only mention by word of sodomite in the Bible. This doesn't really give us a lot of light on the passages in question.

The mentions of the word in plural form are as follows:

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land."

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

No doubt about the fact that God has no use for a sodomite.

Genesis 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

We know from the above verse that Canaanites (Ham's children the recipients of Noah's curse on Ham) settled in Sodom. Now an interesting question arises: were all the inhabitants of Sodom sodomites in the sexual sense of the word? The fact that they lived in the city of Sodom made them Sodomites by location. We also know God destroyed them all, children included. We know that Abraham tried to bargain with God to spare the city and he wound up with only Lot his Daughters and wife (who only made it part of the way out).

Genesis 19:24,25 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

These iniquities apparently led to the sin of Sodomy. Now what is the sin of Sodomy?

Zephaniah 2:9 Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them."

One of the sins of Sodom must be incest: If I read my bible right The Ammonites and the Moabites came from the half breed daughters of Lot through incest. Genesis 19:30-38 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. Come let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day."

Incest defined in these scriptures is women (Lot's daughters) laying with a man (Lot) who happened to be their father. It is safe to say Lot's daughters were sodomites. They were both born and raised there. They were from their Mother who also was a native Sodomite. This particular sodomite sin then is fornication between an unmarried man and women (albeit young women) that are not married and are near of kin one to the other (i.e., incest).

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"

A second sin of Sodom would be that of living Ungodly and this sin covers a lot of territory. 1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. This verse would lead us to believe that all unright things or living is sin and the Sodomites were an example of this kind of living.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

A third sin is fornication as mentioned in this verse. Fornication in the fleshy sexual sense is any male to female sex with partners that are not married to one another. It can be and was incest in some cases but does not have to be. Now we come to strange flesh that would be a fourth type of Sodomite sin.

Webster's 1828 gives us a definition for the word strange:

STRANGE, a. [L.] 1. Foreign; belonging to anther country. I do not contemn the knowledge of strange and divers tongues. [This sense is nearly obsolete.]
2. Not domestic; belonging to others. So she impatient her own faults to see, turns from herself, and in strange things delights. [Nearly obsolete.] 3. New; not before known, heard or seen. The former custom was familiar; the latter was new and strange to them. Hence,
4. Wonderful; causing surprise; exciting curiosity. It is strange that men will not receive improvement, when it is shown to be improvement. Sated at length, ere long I might perceive strange alteration in me.
5. Odd; unusual; irregular; not according to the common way. He is strange and peevish.
6. Remote. [Little used.] 7. Uncommon; unusual. This made David to admire the law of God at that strange rate. 8. Unacquainted. They were now at a gage, looking strange at one another. 9. Strange is sometimes uttered by way of exclamation. Strange! What extremes should thus preserve the snow, high on the Alps, or in deep caves below. This is an elliptical expression for it is strange.

The Bible definition for strange seems to be "wrong". As in "Strange Gods" or "strange women" that Solomon had.

The word of God makes a distinction between Fornication and strange flesh as two different sins. Taking the verse as it stands would make animal sex, strange flesh. We find it forbidden in the Bible in numerous places. Strange flesh would encompass any fleshly sex union of any kind that was not between male and female that would fall under fornication. Children would come in here, men with men, women with women, men with animals, women with animals, man and animal and women together, and any other perverse type of sexual union would constitute "strange flesh". God made Adam and then Eve to be a helpmeet. Sex was to be between the married man and women and was to be used for replenishing the earth. It is also used as an expression of physical love between husband and wife. This is the only sexual union that is given by God and is not strange. Any other sexual act involving anything or anyone would fall into the strange flesh category.

Now getting back to our text of Genesis 9:20-24. "If" the sin of Ham was sodomy (before his sons settled there or it existed) with his father, then what type of sodomy was it? Was this oral sex performed by Ham on his father while he was in this drunken stupor? Or was this anal sex while Noah slept through it? It certainly appears to more than just looking at a naked daddy when the word "done" is introduced. So we believe something was done here to the daddy Noah while he was drunk. Now the question is: was it done to Noah personally or to his wife? Both of which would constitute being done to him, regardless of where Momma was at the time. It works the same way if it (or anything) was done to your children. You take the affront as being "done" to you (as the patriarch, all things done to the family are done to you, including anything done to your home or other possessions. This would even include your animals).

Noah was 500 years old when he had the boys and he was 600 when he went into the Ark. So his sons had a minimum of 80 years of working along side dad while they built the ark. 80 years of construction work in the wilderness sure must have driven Ham mad with lust to wait until after the flood to do this evil deed to his father. "If" the sin was some sex between Father and son. How many Fathers have bathed with their sons while they were young? How many fathers have showered while their sons were older and came into the same bathroom to use other facilities? How many fathers have used sons to get them a roll of toilet paper when they sat down and ran out? How about you asking for a towel to dry off so as not to make the floor wet after a shower? How many fathers have relieved themselves in full sight of an older son when on a far away camping, hunting, or fishing trip in the boondocks? After 80 years of close work with his father we are to believe that the sudden supposedly 1st naked sight of his 600 year old dad excited Ham. This excitement was to the point of some kind of need to have sex with his father. He had never under any circumstance seen his father naked before and was exited to some sinful sex act? Or was never excited by the sight of his father before while just working with him? If he was such a homosexual pervert surely he must have had these desires before. We must not forget that at some point in these 100 years of building this boat Ham found himself a wife (i.e., female type person). So now we must believe that this man was excited to the point of anal rape or oral sex of his father after spending one year on a boat during a storm. We have to take in account that Ham's wife made this ocean cruise with them all. This begins to be quite a "stretch". Back to scripture:

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

The scripture says he saw the nakedness of his father and went and told his brethren. In this case the brethren were his two brothers (no one else around all were drowned out). Now what do you think he told them? Hey Shem, hey Japeth, I saw dad naked in the tent passed out in some kind of stupor and sodomized (whichever sin it was) him. What do you boys think about that? Or did he say hey "Bro" go cover up pop he is naked in his tent and I saw him as I went past. It sure does not say he repented over "whatever" happened. It does say he told them something and they went to Noah and covered "his nakedness". Now what a strange thing for the baby boy to tell his older brothers if that is what he told them. It sort of sounds like he was bragging (baby brothers do this with older brothers all the time) again depending on what was told. So he sees daddy's nakedness and then tells the older boys (over 100 years old at a minimum) and they go and cover daddy up. Now what a strange way for them to do this. They go backwards and cover him up. Where in scripture does God say it is a sin for a father or son to see one another naked? Adult boys who have spent at least 80-90 years working with Pop Noah and Ham the younger brother never saw their dad in a state of undress? A 600 year old man that is naked to some degree (we do not know how much naked or whether he was face up or down) in this tent. They (the older brothers) must have believed Ham (whatever he told them). They went to the tent's opening (or wherever he was, "if" it was "him" in the tent) and proceeded backwards to cover Noah with them not seeing any part of his anatomy (also peculiar behavior). How did they know where in the tent he was without looking? I wonder if they really disbelieved Ham and went to the tent opening and looked in at Noah to see if it was true and then just turned around backwards when they saw daddy naked? Why then if they saw him naked also, did they not get cursed if that is what happened? It is a sure bet that this seeing or uncovering has to do with what was done. Some physical act of some kind. I would have to believe they never saw their dad in any kind of undress for lo these almost 100 years to believe they would act this way in covering him up by walking backwards.  P.S. I don't beleive it. Lets get back to the scripture.

Genesis 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Now a good question to ask is: was Noah a chronic alcoholic or was this his first experience? It will make a great deal of difference how we read what we read to have an idea about this. Lets say he was a sure enough drunk. Well, he made his wine purposely and then proceeded to try to kill his little brown jug. He could very well have drank close to 2 quarts before passing out stone cold into oblivion and be what we call "dead drunk". They do not move for hours in this state. For sure Ham would know if Pop was a "sot" or not. He just bided his time till the quart or two was down and the old man was his for the taking (planned sodomy of some kind). How long did he plan this all knowing pop would fall off the wagon sooner or later when they got off their cruise? This much booze might keep any man down through any kind of "rape".

Now lets suppose for "grins" that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" (and not a drunk) and he did not know about fermentation when he made his grape juice. How much grape juice would he drink anyway? Thinking it was just the same old stuff he made in the past? A glass or two tops is all the grape juice anyone drinks normally. How drunk would he be after a glass or two? Believing this was a first drunk for him and he was only mildly drunk (not enough in a man's system to knock him dead out for hours). How did Ham anally rape him for the first time in this state of drunkenness? Or was it anal rape? Have you considered how painful anal rape is? In prison it takes a number of men to hold down a first time initiate while he is awake (or the man is beaten into submission and cannot resist). What would a slightly drunk man do? Surely he would not be able to just lie there like a dish rag and not wake up in the middle of it and catch the perpetrator in this painful act? This is assuming Ham could start or complete the act without waking up Noah in the first place. No mention of Ham being prone to this kind of behavior so it must have been his first time also and he was not drunk or was he? God had just blessed him (Ham) a few verses prior to this. It is safe to say that Ham was not a sex pervert up to this chance passing of Pop's tent and seeing this golden opportunity to rape his dad. The men of Sodom had plenty of leisure time and fullness of bread according to the scripture before they were able to develop their sex perversion and ungodly living to the heights they did. Did Noah give Ham all this idle time during the building of the ark to develop this lust for strange flesh? Or did he develop this while on the ocean cruise (with his wife available for sex at almost any time). Interesting in the twentieth century is that male sex perverts are usually older men seducing younger boys. In fact they almost always try to seduce or rape as young a boys as possible. In Ham's case if we believe he raped his daddy it is a reversal of the "normal" sex pervert. Well anyhow we are sure something was "done" that was told to the brothers and they acted mighty strangely in repairing the situation. Now back to the scriptures.

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

Now old Noah is stone cold sober and he has figured out what happened. Has his physical discomfort alerted him to what happened (if it was anal rape)? Or if it was oral sex did the older boys just tell him (Noah) what happened? How would they have known unless they caught Ham in the act or believed Ham when he told them what he did. How did old Noah just suddenly know? It is possible God told Noah directly what happened but it does not say this in the verses. If he did know what was done, how did he instantly figure who the culprit was (apart from God telling him)? No DNA testing back then. No semen tests either, or for that matter regular blood tests. Did the older brothers just sit and guard daddy's tent in case Ham came back? This way when Noah woke up they (the brothers) just told him what happened (whatever it was) and he hollered for Ham to curse him. Let us not lose sight of the fact Ham went on to father a number of children through his wife agter this supposed homosexual act. We would have to now "assume" Ham was bi-sexual. We have no account of his sex perversion popping up again at least with his father. This is how you have to handle the verses under a physically sodomized (whatever that was) daddy Noah by Ham the younger son.

Let's try the whole mess over again and pull some additional verses in and see what we can see. Let us also apply some common sense to this great book of history as sinners deal with sinners. In case you have lost sight of the fact, it is a book of History of the rise and fall of the human race. Solomon aptly said:
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

I am inclined to believe the wisest man that ever lived (apart from Jesus) and accept the fact that the sin we see today is very much the same that Solomon saw. Perhaps a little worse because we are so close to the end but I suspect not dramatically so.

4.) The sin? of looking on a drunken naked daddy.

This fourth premise is too far a stretch to even consider. I cannot fathom or substantiate God punishing an entire race of people for a look by one man. You can look on a naked woman inadvertently in this day and age and as long as the "lust in your heart" does not accompany the one look you are safe. The second look will kill you. Adam had looked at the tree in the garden and full well knew it was there but until he "partook" of it he was not punished. If the word "done" has anything at all to do with the context of this controversy (and it does) than some action took place as well as a "look". If Ham by looking was tempted in some way and "walked on by" why the punishment? It is not a sin to be tempted. It is a sin to yield to the temptation.

The controversial verses again with emphasis on the sins that took place: (bearing in mind that Noah sinned also)

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan,saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Genesis 9:23 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.

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Essentially then we have:

1. Drinking of wine and becoming drunk.

2. He (Noah supposedly at first glance) being uncovered within his tent.

3. Seeing the nakedness of his father.

4. Covering the nakedness of the Father so they could not see it. (avoidance of whatever this sin was by the older brothers.)

5. The younger son had apparently "done" the sin unto Noah the father.

We already know that the drinking although leading the younger son to be able to commit this sin (whatever it was) was not the sin itself so we eliminate it from the list. We can also eliminate the older boys from the list because they did not commit the sin. Now we have:

2. Him being uncovered within his tent.

3. Seeing the nakedness of his father.

5. The younger son had apparently "done" the sin unto Noah the father.

Is it a sin for Noah to be "uncovered" in his tent? Not likely. I think we can safely conclude that this was Noah's first experience with alcohol so why was he uncovered? Did he just kick off the blankets when he passed out in bed? This would certainly have him uncovered. Or is this uncovering to mean he was naked (i.e., no clothes). Why would a first time drunk take off his clothes? He had no idea while he was drinking his fresh grape juice (or so he thought) that this stuff was going to adversely effect him. Did he normally sleep in the buff? Where was his wife? Some would say that a woman won't sleep with a drunk so she went elsewhere. Thatís fine but how did she know he was drunk? If this was a first time drunk for Noah could she not have supposed that he was just some kind of sick? Then she could stand by her man wiping his brow until he awoke from this "new" sickness. Interesting question. If we are going to suppose she was upset with him being drunk and left his tent because of it where did she go? You could contend she was in her own tent as was the custom in those days and probably did not even know he was passed out. Or how about he was passed out and she was in the tent with him as a dutiful wife concerned with whatever ailment he had? How then did Ham carry off this dastardly deed in her presence? We are going to have to search the scriptures to get any light on this at all. We cannot just assume what this uncovering was with Noah, nor can we determine what the nakedness means in light of the bible until we look up the word nakedness. So we are down to two parts of this puzzle to try to make some sense of the sin that took place.

2. Him (Noah?) uncovered within his tent.

3. Seeing the nakedness of his father.

The word uncovered occurs 17 times in the bible.

1. Genesis 9:21 Noah "supposedly" as taught by most folks.

2. Leviticus 20:11 A woman in a sexual context

3. Leviticus 20:17 A woman in a sexual context

4. Leviticus 20:18 A woman in a sexual context

5. Leviticus 20:20 A woman in a sexual context

6. Leviticus 20:21 A woman in a sexual context

7. Ruth 3:7 A mans feet

8. 2 Samuel 6:20 A man dancing in front of all the house of Israel

9. Isaiah 20:4 Ethiopians as an entire nation naked for a reproach

10. Isaiah 22:6 A piece of armament

11. Isaiah 47:3 A nation for shame

12. Jeremiah 49:10 Essau's hiding places

13. Ezekiel 4:7 A man's arm

14. Habbakuk 2:16 A portion of a man's anatomy

15. Mark 2:4 A house's roof

15. 1 Corinthians 11: 5, 13 A woman with a haircut

It is easy to narrow this list to the verses that have any kind of sexual implications:

1.) Genesis 9:21 Noah? as taught by most folks.

2.) Leviticus 20:11 A woman in a sexual context

3.) Leviticus 20:17 A woman in a sexual context

4.) Leviticus 20:18 A woman in a sexual context

5.) Leviticus 20:20 A woman in a sexual context

6.) Leviticus 20:21 A woman in a sexual context

7.) Habbakuk 2:16 A portion of a man's anatomy

Now let us find the verses for the "seeing of the nakedness of the father"

Genesis 9:22  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

That one was easy it is part of our study.

Now what pray tell did he (Ham) see? Did Ham see his Daddy crashed drunk on his bed with his clothes off or the covers off his feet like Boaz? Lets not forget Momma with a sick (drunk) husband. Keep her in mind she is definitely going to surface soon.

Let us include nakedness so we can get a handle on it also. It occurs 57 times in the bible.

The first three times it occurs is in our controversial texts Genesis 9:22+23

The next two times it is the nakedness of the Land in Genesis 42: 9+12

The next time is right after the law and concerns walking up the steps of an altar and seeing your nakedness (under the skirt to be plainly spoken).

The next is to fit the previous one by creating a linen underwear so the nakedness cannot be seen Exodus 28:42

Now here is where the waters are going to get deep. The next "32" occurrences of the word nakedness are in relation to this sin of uncovering. The problem for those with their preconceived notions of exactly what the sin in Genesis 9 was will have a very hard time reading these verses.

They go contrary to what they would have you to believe. They occur from Leviticus 18:6 and go through to Leviticus 20: 21. This is where much of what we need for proof texts will come so we will skip this and finish up nakedness and then come back here.

From here (Leviticus) through to Revelation 3:18 we have spiritual nakedness, national nakedness, geographical nakedness.

Ezekiel 22:6-11 Looks as if this is a sexual nakedness in the sense that some sex act is taking place. It would only add a few more "nakednesses" to the overwhelming "32" of Leviticus, as it appears to be very similar.

Habbakuk 2:14-16 are very noteworthy and may show up in this discussion later. If you look now you see a man that appears to be getting his male neighbor drunk. (Sort of like what happened to Noah If I remember correctly). This is so he can look (or more if possible) on the wife's nakedness. Look close you will see it is "their" nakedness he wants to see not the man's. If I had a dollar for each time I have seen this in a bar with one buddy getting another drunk and his wife, if possible, for the sole purpose of taking advantage of "her"I could take good financial care of some missionaries. My mother owned a bar for 20 years and I worked with her a number of those years.

Habakkuk 2:14-16  For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.  15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! 16 Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory."

37 or 38 times the term "nakedness" occurs in a sexual sin context, it is a "woman's" nakedness that is being discussed not a man's. Now isn't that interesting?

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Isaiah 47:3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

As you can see from the above verses when a man's nakedness is "seen" it is called "his shame". It is not called his nakedness. I realize that is not conclusive yet but we sure got a mess of conclusions still coming.

Another shot at this "see" business so we can sink the folks conclusively on the subject of the sin of Ham being some kind of look devoid of action.

Matthew 25:34-44 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?"

So the folks that saw them naked and clothed them went to heaven and those that saw and didn't clothe them went to hell. Seems to be some action here necessary or lack of action.

Isaiah 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

These folks are seeing the naked and covering them.

Once more with feeling:

John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea."

Acts 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

The above are a couple of places where folks saw folks naked and there does not appear to be any sin or problem involved on the part of the see'er.

Now let us hit Leviticus head on and see what the Lord has to say about a man's "nakedness". Let me repeat that for some diehard hardheads. I said what the Lord has to say about a MAN'S nakedness and what it means with no silly guessing or conjecture about the matter. Now hopefully everyone that has made it thus far can still read, so we will call this Bible study comparing spiritual things (verses) with spiritual things (more verse's). Simple huh? 1st Corinthians 2:10-13.

Leviticus 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

No doubt there is an action taking place here. It would almost certainly be that sin of incest we hit with Lot because it clearly mentions "near" of kin.

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

This is the "only" unclear verse on this nakedness in Leviticus. It is clear here that a delineation is being made between a mother and a father's wife in the verse below. This is going to be "real" important coming up. Even though it speaks of the father and does not really clarify his nakedness, we will see shortly it being abundantly clear. It does repeat the warning for the mother and not for dear old Pop.

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

I don't know how much explaining this verse would need. The Father's nakedness is the Mother naked (not the Father) and the act of uncovering her is most certainly a sex act, not just the action of removing her clothes. Remember long ago I told you an action taken against any Patriarch's person, place, or things is considered an action against him. Come on on brethren when we sin against our wife, or friends, or brethren, who are we sinning against? Not that person for sure, we are sinning against God. Psalms 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Leviticus 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover."

Real clear this nakedness is a female. Lets remember these are Levitical laws.

Leviticus 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

How about this for a clear verse? You as the Patriarch cannot uncover these women's nakedness for it also "YOUR OWN". We have moved at least a generation away and it is still considered your own flesh or in this case your nakedness. I hope you are getting this.

Leviticus 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

This one is going to be important for the finale also because we see that Daddy's wife is not "your" mother but you still can't uncover her nakedness. A sex act with a women again not a man. I hope you are counting these and going to be reasonable with the evidence presented. You can't stick your head in the sand forever and keep saying "but I thought". Try reading for a change and then thinking about what you read.

Leviticus 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

Incest again with a "woman".

Leviticus 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

By now you should be getting the idea that this act is not perverse in the sense of unnatural or Homosexual in nature. You should also be getting the idea it is with the female of the species regardless of the fact it is considered the "mans" nakedness. It is in all likely hood your ordinary sex act consummated on someone too close to you and as such is one of the sins of Sodom. i.e., Incest. This can only be explained plainly and was never meant for children. If it is too crude for your sensitive TV-blinded eyes (that have seen the act on your boob tube more times than you can count) please forgive me. Thanks.

Leviticus 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

Any trouble getting this one? If so let us compare the companion verse in Leviticus 20 before we go any further. We have to nail down these words before we can finish and come up with any conclusion.

Leviticus 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

Yes, I can read and see that this is a mutual sex act between the two hence they both suffer for the sin. This was only to show the UNCLE's NAKEDNESS is his wife, not him.

Leviticus 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Again the woman's physical nakedness not the man's.

Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

Again real clear to all but the most stubborn that the man's nakedness is not his personally. Don't jump to conclusions I did not say this was infallible proof for the sin in Genesis 9, what I said was it is infallible proof for who is actually naked. We will get back to Genesis soon enough. Just relax and do thyself no harm since it is just a Bible study you can't lose your salvation no matter what you start to believe. Lighten up.

Leviticus 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness;
for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

Again as near as I can read this again is dealing with a command not to uncover someoneís nakedness and it is all kinds of women, not Men.

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

This takes care of marrying two sisters or for that matter sexually having relations with your wife's sister while she is alive. It infers it is OK to marry your wife's sister if your wife has passed away.

Leviticus 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness."

Now what male dunce (bible believer or not) is going to have difficulty with understanding what uncovering means? Now please explain how a man would uncover a man? They are not equipped the same. Put this down as point one in trying to nail down the sin in Genesis 9. The sin being "common" (if this word even fits) sexual intercourse. Man with woman. For those that need more graphic explanations buy a good medical dictionary if you are uable to figure that a man cannot "uncover" a man in this biblical sense.

Now let us go on to Leviticus chapter 20 and start to wind this diatribe up.

Leviticus 20:11 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.

For the doubting Thomasís here is a verse where the Holy Spirit gives you the definition of uncovering in the same verse. It is not the taking off of a blanket or other materiel from a persons body, it is a physical act. This is consensual sex and costs dearly but look real careful at the wording.
It is not his mother it is his father's wife.

I am real sure this sin is mentioned in the New Testament and the man is only put out of the church.

Levitucus 20:11 hath uncovered his father's nakedness

And our problem text says:

Genesis 9:21-23 "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."

Look at the semi-colon between he was drunken, and he was uncovered. You Bible students know full well God on many occasion has seperated entire dispensations by a semicolon.

Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Woman again.

Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

Woman again.

Leviticus 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

This takes care of the explanation from Leviticus 18 again. Woman again real clear.

Leviticus 20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

Uncovering again and only with a woman do not forget the equipment difference from the verse above.

Leviticus 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

Again for the 30th something time a man's nakedness in dealing with this "uncovering sin" is a naked woman and sexual intercourse. Not nice but not "unnatural". It is a sodomite sin of incest and is forbidden in all of these verses given by God as commands to live by.

Leviticus 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

This is the last time in Leviticus for words uncovered and nakedness.

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

We Bible believers attribute this sin that was passed on from Ham to his descendants to be a sexual sin. Consequently we attribute this same sin of sexual immorality to the black race as we know it today. We do not look at the entire black race and say they are all homosexual, but largely we do say apart from those in Christ they do have a fleshy sexual nature. We in America have seen this since the equal rights thing started in the sixties and our public schools largely are shot because of it. The races do not mix well. They do not act alike, think alike, behave alike or for that matter smell alike. I realize that lost liberals and many Christians do not believe this but whatís new? We believe this way partially because what we see in society to be an affirmation of the curse placed on Cannan. Primarily we believe this because God said this race would be cursed and even though all the ramifications of this curse cannot be seen, we see enough to believe it. I think the saying is God said it and that is the end of the matter whether we choose to believe it or not God is right and we are not.

Let us lastly look at the word garment:

Genesis 9:23 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.

This is in all likelihood the clothes of the time. It is not a blanket or sheet that is used for a bedcover and then just placed over this person to cover them. If we assume that Ham raped Noah because Noah got drunk this "first" time and immediately took off his clothes and then passed out naked so his son could see him. Don't we first have to assume that Noah had enough wits about himself to take off this "garment" (clothes) after his bout with the grapes. If he took off his clothes why didn't the two boys just give him back the clothes he took off (they would in all likelihood be right where he left them in passing out). Why did they bring him a garment? There are just too many assumptions in the theory of Ham "raping" Noah or any other kind of sex with Daddy. Why did the boys lay this garment on their shoulders to give to their daddy? If he was awake from his wine, why could he not put on his own clothes? He had been dressing himself for over 600 years. I would guess he could get dressed blindfolded and did not need any help. I would also "guess" the boys could have just thrown clothes in the tent to him instead of walking backward. Think about all these verses like I have already said in their entire context, not just stopping at one verse and drawing a conclusion. This is a vile sin that cost an entire race "servitude" it bears looking at real close.

Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

In this study we have said nothing about where this color business started or what role it has played in this sin. I believe that God put everything on the Ark that he wanted reproduced (apart from the aquatic stuff). I believe he wanted it produced after its kind, at least this is what he said. This brings me to Ham and his color and the color of his wife. Here is what I believe (and cannot prove) Ham and his wife were "BLACK", Japeth and his wife were pinkish, Shem and his wife were ruddy. I believe that Ham did not come from the wife of Noah that was on this boat ride. I believe Noah had more than one wife to produce this variety of children. I believe God would not have the races' boundaries on the earth set and then send Ham out with an shemitic or japthetic wife to "replenish" the "black" race. I can't make sense out of that (if you can more power to you)  God wanted all of these races separate which is the opposite of what we see the devil doing today. Distinctions are all being lost because of this race mixing and I do not accept that this is what God wanted when they came out of the ark.

Having said all of the above here is the way I see this sin based on the scriptures I read and any corroborating evidence I can find.

Noah starts raising crops and now that the world has rain and things have changed since the flood, I believe that alterations in our planet have taken place. Remember that Noah was not that far removed from the garden and the original curse in relation to time. Also an event like a world wide flood and different atmospheric conditions taking place altered what Noah knew from before. I believe he raised a crop of grapes (probably from cuttings he had on the ark) and he turned them into grape juice. I believe he put them in animal skins or gourds as he had done in the past. I believe they fermented in some way and changed to some degree to an alcoholic beverage. I believe that he and Ham were drinking this together somewhere and were unaccustomed to the affects that took place in their body and were ignorant of the power of the grape. This explanation will work even if Ham was not drinking with his father, but only found his father passed out somewhere drunk. I just find it more plausible this way with both the father and son reaping the harvest or fruits of their combined labors (growing a crop of grapes). I believe it caused Noah to pass out to some degree right where he drank it (not necessarily in his tent). Noah not being used to alcohol it did not take much to affect him adversely, and why couldn't he just lay down anywhere he chose? He owned the whole world at this time who would bother him or tell him he could not? Ham being younger did not pass out but as in all drunks he was affected. I believe it uninhibited Ham (if he was the one also drinking it) to a degree that he raped his step Momma (In Noah's tent) on the way back to his own tent probably looking for his wife. For those innocent of the knowledge of drink, it will invariably affect the libido of most men and women and they become (under the mild influence) very lustful. Because alcohol is a depressant a great amount of it consumed will render a person incapable or uninterested in sex. I believe he ripped and tore the clothing of his Step mother off of her in the process (I beleive she resisted) and she needed clothes to cover back up when the deed was done. I believe after he did this evil deed he bragged about it to his brothers (whether it was their mother or not I do not know). This is typical of a drunk (bragging about sin) and he was probably still in his drunken state after leaving his father. From the time he left daddy until he went and told his brothers could have been as little as a fifteen minute period of time and probably no longer than an hour. I believe part of his excitement was brought on by the fact she was "white" and he was uninhibited to some degree. I believe the brothers went to check it out and heard this woman moaning and crying and realized it was true. I believe this is when they found a garment and placed it on their shoulders. (It was high enough that a woman could just stand up and the garment would fall over her shoulders and they would not see their Mother (or step mother) naked. She could have directed them where to walk or stand as they walked backwards. This was the reason we read they went "backwards" to do this covering. It was an unusual thing to do if it was their daddy. I believe when Noah woke up he either was told by the boys or went and found his wife in this sad state. She told him what happened even the covering up by the older brothers. I believe that the sin of Genesis 9 was rape by a black man of a white woman and he has been inadvertently admitting his guilt since that time. His admission comes in the form of a foul street word that can be heard anytime in almost any conversation with a black man. The first part of the word is Mother. So the best way I know how I have searched the scriptures to come up with this answer. I also used my 49 years of life and experience to figure what I believe is the most plausible answer to this sin.

Now a little re-hash and I quit.

Did old Noah beget all these boys when he was five hundred? This is what the verse says. They must have been triplets then right? Or did he have three different wives? Where did Ham get his color? Does not his name mean black or burned by the sun or Son for that matter?

I think Ham was enjoying this supposedly harmless fruit of the vine with his pop and recognized the adverse affect it was having on Noah and he took advantage of it. He being under the influence also and free from some inhibitions himself. It would have been perfectly natural for Noah to have a glass of his harvest with his son. His son very well probably helped him plant them. I don't think it was his natural mother but it was his step mother and not the father (Noah) that was sexually assualted. It could have been Mrs. and Mr. Noah having their grape juice and ham saw the effect it had on them and had his opportunity this way also. As for knowing what was done unto him, Ham had already told the brothers and they would have covered Momma as best they could without seeing her naked. She was most likely crying and visibly shaken Noah certainly would have heard that also. The older sons were not going to keep this a secret for sure especially if it was one of the boys own mother. If was anal intercourse on Noah he certainly would have had to ask who if he didn't wake up, unless God told him or he had some thought it would happen from his younger son. Which means for over a hundred years he watching his son closely and never mentioned this sin? A preacher of righteousness?

This is what I believe and why (not that what I believe is all that important except to me).

I believe it because the scriptures support it 30 plus verses to "one" on the words "uncovered" and the "nakedness of the man" always being a women that some sort of sex is committed with.

I believe it because the word uncovered is never defined as a homosexual act in the word of God.

I believe it because this supposed sin of Homosexuality does not show up in the Bible anywhere until Sodom and there it took time for the development of it or degeneration to it. Yes, it does come from Ham's descendants and that proves that they had a fleshy sensual sin nature. It does not prove that all Blacks were queer or came from a queer. They all weren't from the fact that Sodom was populated (think on that for a hundred years or so and then argue). I think in the case of Sodom you will find that this is the first mention of men wanting to know men, long after genesis 9. Approximately 450 years of degeneration from Ham's sin.

I believe it because I have watched sin of this nature in the world's system for over 45 years. (Subjective but it does have substance)

I believe it because of the typology of Noahís three sons being like Adam's three sons and one had to be bad like Cain. Who also was marked with Black wasn't he? They were also told to replenish the earth.

I believe it was sex with his step momma because of the Black man's attitude towards a white women. Where did Ham and his color come from in the first place? Noah could have had a number of wives. One for each of the older boys and then a handmaiden could have produced Ham. Or he could have had three wives at one time or one at a time and they all died and he got a last wife for the trip. All speculation I know but not really necessary to prove the point. The scriptures have done that already. I would like a reasonable understandable explanation of events to coincide with the verses given.

I believe it because Abraham had similar trouble with a black man in Genesis 12. This is where he had a fair wife (read white or fair complexioned i.e., light skinned) and a black man wanted her sure enough.

I believe it because this was his first chance to get away with it (if it was ever a thought of this sin in the back of his mind while on the boat ride). He may have been drinking with his daddy just like the interesting verse in Habbukkuk. He "could" have purposefully gotten his daddy drunk if he knew the effects of the wine. Then the verse in Habbakkuk is even more illuminating. Go back and read how it was handled to get to the female's nakedness. He would have lost his inhibitions just like his daddy lost his conscience. He could have plotted this for a whole year (or however long Noah had this particular wife) or least thought about it on the voyage and the close quarters. I would bet old Noah was seeing a number of things on this voyage that he was mulling over in his mind. Surely he would have seen the differences in his younger son Ham over the years of building the boat (if he was a Black man as we know them).

If God drowned the whole world because of perverse wickedness, why would he let Ham on the boat to perpetuate the queer life style? Was Ham already leaning this way or purposed it in his mind? God surely would have chosen a black man that he could use to multiply and replenish the earth. Queers don't replenish they recruit.

I believe it because Ham had a premonition that daddy was going to divide this old world to make pure-breeds and not mongrels of the three races. It could have been an "in your face" act on Hams part.

I believe it because he was the younger son and it virtually never fails the younger son or daughter is spoiled in some way especially when it comes to getting what they want. This man decided he wanted a white woman and this was an opportunity for it.

I believe it because the devil has wanted to mess with the seed of the woman since he deceived Eve. You can't plant seed that will grow in a man, it bears no fruit. Go ahead and think on this "seed" business and make it planting a seed in a man.

I believe it because it is consistent (extra-marital sex) with a married man that Ham was and goes on in fact produces offspring (this is not conclusive but it is certainly consistent). Did he have a queer lapse and then get over it?

I believe it because it makes more sense than any other explanation (for me anyway).

I believe it because of the way the two older boys covered up the nakedness.

I believe it because of the younger son telling the older brothers like an in your face braggadocio thing that a younger son would do. Especially if it was not his real mom.

I believe it because I have always wondered why a black man's favorite word is "mother_ _ _ _ _ _ " whether he was educated or not it always comes out of his mouth. It is like a continual confession over the centuries.

I believe it because he would probably tried to hide the other type of sex act so his wife wouldn't know. A wife can deal with another woman but have you ever heard of one being able to deal with the other man? They usually run the other way and leave the men to themselves. I understand the sin would come out sooner or later in a world population of 8. I think he would not have gone and told his brothers about an unnatural act with the daddy but he would have bragged about the momma especially if he was still tipsy.

I believe it because of the fact Ham was shortly going to be mighty sexless if this was his new life style. Remember he was only given one wife to go off and replenish the earth with. If he would have left the family unit with no one, what was he going to do for sex then? The black man is not a good loner.

I believe it because God put two of everything on that ark (to produce after its kind). I find it hard to believe he would have re-started the whole earth with anything less than pure breeds. I think all the sons had pure bred wives. Shem with Shem, Japheth with Japheth, and Ham with Ham. If he was black as in African black or Haiti black he was not like 99% of what you see in America after the centuries of inbreeding. He was very Blackkkkkkk. Hard to believe God would have given him a white wife. What color was those sons of god in Genesis 6 and what color were those daughters of men? Weren't those women Fair?

I believe it because this instance of wine was probably his first chance at the momma and it would not have been the first chance at the daddy.

I believe it because Noah would not have slept through the painful act thought to have been committed.

I believe it because Ham had not the free time his progeny would have to degenerate to this more base or unnatural sin of homosexuality.

I believe it basically because it makes more sense than any other explanation I have heard thus far. Where are the supporting scriptures to make it queer sex?

I believe because of the years I have watched Ham's descendants latch on to a white woman to try to raise their own station in life. The black men want to return to what must have been their original color. Try putting 100 black men (worldly lost ones) in a line that gives them an opportunity to choose between a blond petite white woman, a woman of their own race, a white man, or a man of their own race. Tell me which one he will choose for sex virtually every time? Answer this question please!

I believe it because when you look at the proportion of Queers whether they be men or women the white male outnumbers all the rest of them put together. I know that there are black queers and that in prison they do all kinds of horrible things. Ham's sin is fleshly but on the whole it is with women and usually multiple ones at that. Yes, if he is thrown in jail he will revert to men but by the same token if it is Ham and you throw Ham in the Jungle he will mess with the animals. His first choice is women but take that choice away from him and he will find something to satisfy his flesh no matter what it is. (Apart from a snake that is.) They seem to have an aversion to them. Curious I wonder if they had dealings with serpents before and have kept that fear since their Daddy was marked in the beginning?) Another Bible study for sure.

This was a sin of opportunity at the spur of the moment. If you take into account the older boy's reaction to the news from their younger brother and how they "covered up" the nakedness, it is the only explanation that makes perfect sense.

Homepage

Copyright Notice
(NOT FOR RESALE)

The content of this work is considered by the author a labor of love for the Lord Jesus Christ. It is for the express purpose of teaching and conveying the truths of the scriptures.

No part of this publication, book or other materials whether written, recorded, or drawn may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording, or any other information storage, retrieval system, multimedia, or internet system, for commercial purposes or made part of any commercial venture without the prior express written permission of the author.

Permission for Single Copy for Personal Use - Permission is granted by the author for the reproduction or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording, or any other information storage, retrieval system, multimedia system consisting of a single copy for personal use. The copy must contain a copy of the Bible Believerís Copyright Notice. It must give full credit to the author and must be a complete copy of the original without alteration or deviation from the original content. They must also be labeled or stamped "NOT FOR RESALE".

Permission for Copies for Distribution - Permission is granted by the author for the reproduction or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording, or any other information storage, retrieval system, multimedia, internet system consisting of single or multiple copies or for simultaneous access for *non-commercial distribution and use. The copy must contain a copy of the Bible Believerís Copyright Notice. It must give full credit to the author and must be a complete copy of the original without alteration or deviation from the original content.

Any alteration or deviation from the original content requires the prior express written permission of the author. They must also be labeled or stamped "NOT FOR RESALE".

*Non-commercial distribution - For the purpose of this Copyright Notice, noncommercial distribution shall consist of reproductions or transmissions distributed free of any charge except reasonable shipping and material costs. Material costs shall consist of the cost for whatever media or medium the content is reproduced or transmitted to and shall not include any charge to recover equipment purchase or leasing costs. All labor for non-commercial distribution shall be considered a labor of love and no attempt shall be made to include any charge for any labor or handling fee except bona-fide out of pocket expenses paid to professional printing, copying, or shipping companies, as part of the cost of reproduction, transmission or shipping, etc.