1) We resolve to carefully study the pertinent Bible verses in context, i.e., being wary of potentially unrelated connections.
2) Seeking approved Scriptural examples of believers who practiced the application mirroring our interpretation.
3) Supplying historical examples, especially from the 1st century CE (or earlier), of believers who understood and/or practiced the application of our interpretation of the texts in question.

     This latter criterion doesn't necessarily work after the 1st century CE because (a) it's a fact that "grievous wolves" had already entered the flock to deceive during the Apostle Paul's lifeime (Acts 20:29-30) and (b) the teaching that Yeshua rose on the first day of the week is a controversial one because there are no verses in the New Testament outright stating that He did, and even if He did, there are no approved examples of believers meeting on the first day of the week because He rose on that day. It has to be inferred, e.g., Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2.

     I am persuaded that 99% of all Torah-related disagreements could be resolved with little or no tension if all parties agreed on the above. Sadly, many do not.

     The latest controversy with which I was confronted involves "The curse of Canaan," as found in Genesis 9:20-27. Here's what we read in those verses:

20 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.

26 And he said, Blessed be Yahweh Elohim of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27 Elohim shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

     A friend recently sent us a video in which the host narrator "proves" that while Noah lay drunken in his tent, Ham did more than just "tell his two brethren without"; no, he actually had sexual relations with his mother, who consequently became pregnant and gave birth to Canaan. I was intrigued by the video and, without giving it much thought, immediately accepted it as a likely possibility.

     An author expressing this same viewpoint wrote: "If Noah’s wife became pregnant as a result of the encounter with Ham, then we might have a strong explanation for the cursing of Canaan. That is, Canaan may have been the result of this incestuous event. And if that were the case, then Noah’s curse has to do with Canaan being an illegitimate child, the result of Noah’s own son seeking to usurp his authority by lying with his wife. The curse does not necessarily mean that Canaan was destined to be evil and rejected by God. It likely meant that his descendants would not enjoy the same blessings given to the descendants of Shem and Japheth, and that Canaan’s descendants would serve them."

     So the above author is persuaded Canaan was cursed because he was an illegitimate child born out of an incestuous relationship. Okay, I can see that. It made sense. But the excitement of the above interpretation soon wore off when I read a different interpretation.

     A man professing to be a rabbi (of which there is no shortage) authored an alternate interpretation in which he completely contradicts the above narrative, claiming the reason Canaan was cursed is because he (Canaan) was the perpetrator, but it wasn't Noah who he saw naked, it was his own father, Ham. But as the claim goes, not only was Canaan the perpetrator, and not only did he see his father naked, but he also molested him. Of course, as the yarn goes, the original version of the narrative must have been "edited" and watered down to make it appear that Ham was the "peeping Tom," but that's as far as he (Ham) went. The rabbi presents a fanciful spin, and he makes his twisted version almost believable, but like the other interpretation, no historical evidence that the ancients professed his understanding may be found.

     I would expect to read some approved Scriptural accounts in which believers expressed the above rabbis' interpretations, but there are none. Historically-speaking, the author of The Book of Jubilees understood it was Ham who saw his father naked, and, following the Biblical narrative, Shem and Japheth walked backwards into the tent and covered Noah (Jubilees VII:5-10). First-century Jewish commentator Philo addressed this incident in two places ["On Sobriety," ch. VII (32) and "Questions and Answers on Genesis, II," (69-72)]. In neither case did he deviate from the Biblical narrative:

     In response to the question, "What is the meaning of the words, 'He related it to his two brothers outside'?" Philo answered:

(Scripture) increasingly magnifies the accusation. First of all, it was not to one brother alone that he [Ham] told his father’s involuntary transgression but to both. And if there had been many, he would have told them all rather than only those whom he could. And this he did derisively when he spoke to them (of a matter) deserving not of derision and jest but of modesty, awe and reverence.

     The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus likewise offers nary a hint that either Ham or Canaan inflicted any perverse acts on anyone:

Noah, when, after the deluge, the earth was resettled in its former condition, set about its cultivation; and when he had planted it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered the grapes in their season, and the
wine was ready for use, he offered sacrifice, and feasted, and, being drunk, he fell asleep, and lay naked in an unseemly manner. When his youngest son saw this, he came laughing, and showed him to his brethren; but they covered their father's nakedness. And when Noah was made sensible of what had been done, he prayed for prosperity to his other sons; but for Ham, he did not curse him, by reason of his nearness in blood, but cursed his prosperity: and when the rest of them escaped that curse, God inflicted it on the children of Canaan.

     Why didn't any of these ancient authors understand that either Ham or Canaan committed vile sins with either Noah or his wife? Might it be because, to them, the act of seeing one's father naked is, in and of itself, a horrific, despicable, thing? Why is it we have to wait until the 20th or 21st century to "learn" of what really happened? Truth to be told, we, in these latter days, have been so conditioned that seeing anyone unclothed is perfectly natural that we now resort to seeking out some other hidden, sinister acts to explain why Noah was so "upset." Thanks to our culturally-accepted movies, TV, etc., we think very little of seeing men and women unclothed.

     Why can't we just settle for what the Word says at face value? But if that's too much to ask, then why not seek out some approved Scriptural examples of some believer—any believers—writing something to the effect of, "Behold, the Almighty withholdeth to render the actual sin described herein; that Canaan, not Ham, performed unspeakable acts upon his father"? It's just not there, and is apparently limited to wishful thinking on the part of these latter-day wannabe prognosticators, along with their followers.

     But if they cannot produce approved Scriptural examples, then how about presenting evidence from history that believers understood there was, in fact, an unspeakable, vile act perpetrated on either Noah or Ham? Sadly, this is yet another example of believers relying on their interpretation of the Bible, and their interpretation alone, to determine truth.

     Even among those who believe we should strive to obey Torah, June and I seem to be alone in our belief that we should not allow our interpretation of various texts to color our understanding of truth. Rather, we need to go beyond our own understanding and confirm that others in ancient history shared our understanding. Of course, approved Scriptural examples of our understanding are "icing on the cake."

     If you are one of those who agrees that we need to be very cautious about concluding our singular interpretation of the Bible is correct without consulting either approved Scriptural examples or the historical record from the 1st century BCE and beyond, please let us know by emailing us at seekutruth at aol dot com. At this time, my wife and I feel alone in our belief on this topic.

    I think it's fitting that I also include my examples of controversies that could be resolved if we could all agree on the "three criteria for determining truth":

Resolving Disagreements/Controversies:

     I'm persuaded that 99% of disagreements, especially disagreements about Torah application, would be resolved if all parties would agree on the three following resolution criteria:

1) Careful study of pertinent Bible verses in context.

2) Approved Scriptural examples of believers who practiced the application of our interpretation of the texts in question.

3) Historical examples, especially from the 1st century CE (or earlier), of believers who understood and/or practiced application of our interpretation of the texts in question.

Allowing the above criteria to determine our understanding of Torah application would resolve such issues as:

1) When a Scriptural day begins.

2) When a Scriptural month begins.

3) When a Scriptural year begins.

4) How to count to Pentecost.

5) Whether or not the Almighty approves of cooking or warming up food on Shabbat.

6) Whether or not all new moon days should be regarded as special "sabbaths."

7) When the Passover lambs were slaughtered.

8) Whether or not post-Resurrection believers should kill lambs for Passover.

9) Whether or not Jerusalem is still the place where the Almighty chooses to place His name.

10) The Creator's name.

11) The Messiah's name.

12) Whether or not the Messiah had a pre-carnal existence.

13) Whether or not we honor the Almighty by referring to Him as "God" or "our God."

14) Whether or not abortion is murder.

15) Whether or not the weekly Sabbath is determined by the lunar cycle.

16) Whether or not the Almighty sanctions observing "holidays" whose origins are rooted in pagan celebrations (e.g., Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day, Hallowe'en).

17) Whether or not we should celebrate birthdays, cf., Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book II, 26, or any reputable news source.

18) Whether or not baptism is by "sprinkling" or "immersion."

19) Whether or not men should have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14 and Roman Secular understanding).

20) Whether or not men should pray with their heads covered.

21) Whether or not polygyny is permitted, cf., Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book I, ch. xxiv, 2 and Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, ch. 1, 2.

     In addition to the above controversial issues, minor ones could likewise be resolved by using the three criteria, such as whether or not Samuel was raised from the dead at Saul's visit with the witch of Endor, and whether or not Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter.