What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah? (Part 1)

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
101

This, being a figure of speech; uncovered

An expression that uses language in a nonliteral way, such as a metaphor or synedoche, or in a structured or unusual way, such as anaphora or chiasmus, or that employs sounds, such as alliteration or assonance, to achieve a rhetorical effect.

Would mean the the word can actually have a different meaning than its standard dictionary one. Isn’t it great how language is fluid like that…

Really, I can see how you could get that if you don’t take it in context with the whole story. But since God had said that the savior would come through the seed of the woman and Satan heard him say that, it would seem reasonable that (they) Satan and the fallen angels, would try to thwart God’s plan.

There is another one of those darn figures of speech again.

But if you choose to get so caught up in your own wisdom you will be drowned by it.

1 Chorth 1:27, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

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

I would assume that you have no problem with the fact that he went from planting a vineyard to drinking wine in one verse. There wasn’t a 6 months of growing and then time for the fermentation of the wine.

So why is it that you have the problem with his cursing Canaan who is the result of Ham’s behavior with his mother in the next verse? You really are hard headed aren’t you? :smack:
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Not him really, but to his wife, those darn figures of speech again…

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

102

Moderator Speaks: Nolies, your post in response to Chronos about Satan in the garden is out of line. You were told that this is a thread about Noah, and Noah’s nakedness. It is NOT a thread about Satan and the Garden, it is not a thread about a “woman’s seed,” it is NOT a thread about crucifixion. You WILL keep to topic.

Any other posts that are off-topic will be deleted. If you want to participate in discussion here, you should read the Rules of the Board and you would act wisely if you did not try to ignore a direct direction from a Moderator.

103

But you’re the one who is twisting it beyond it’s literal meaning. It’s up to you, not me, to defend my position.

Perhaps I should make you aware, Noiles, that I am not a Christian, and, as such, quoting Corinthians to me will get you nowhere.

The difference is that in the first case (Noah became a man of the earth…became drunk) there is no other way to explain it. It doesn’t make any sense without the time necessary to grow grapes in between. In your case, however, it does not have to be explained that way. It can be explained in a simple manner (that Noah, upon awakening, cursed Canaan).

Do you enjoy issuing insults so? I haven’t insulted you once in this entire discussion, and I would kindly ask you to treat me with the same respect that I’ve shown for you.

Why do you say that it is a figure of speech? Why can’t the verse be read according to it’s plain meaning?

Zev Steinhardt

104

C K Dexter Haven, Sorry to offend you.

I guess that is off topic also? :smack: Sorry couldn’t resist, I am a weak man please forgive me.

I did try on my last post to stay on topic.

Has Chronos been censured too?

105

If I take,

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:

Would that mean if I don’t like the color of my eye, I should Pluck it out.

If I take it at it’s plain meaning, then, yes it would, but that would be taking it out of context from the verses and the story line surrounding it. That is what is known as being woodenly literal.

We know that from the entire context of the passage that what Ham did was not to his father but to his mother. So when it says And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. It wasn’t him but his wife. See; ‘Uncovered his fathers nakedness’ in previous verses.

You don’t want to know, so you will never know…
I will not waste my time, with your foolishness. You believe yourself to be wise, but the meaning of the story is as plain as the nose on your face and you still can’t see it. :smack:

Luke 8:10 - And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Mark 4:12 - That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Matthew 13:13 - Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 - And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Good day!

106

Of course not. But that’s because there is no other way to logically explain it.

So you say, but since his mother isn’t mentioned in the story, how do you know this? How do you know it doesn’t mean that he had sex with his father (which certainly is more probable) or simply did not show his father the proper respect by bragging about his debased state to his brothers?

Again, you’re twisting the verses beyond their simple meanings.

And, as an aside, numerous Jewish commentators have expressed thier opinions on this episode and not one mention the scenario that you are hypothesising. And I’m fairly certain that the majority of Christian commentators would agree with me.

Oh well. I guess it was too much to ask for common courtesy.

Or you’re seeing stories that aren’t there. If the story is “as plain as the nose on my face” then why have no Jewish commentators throughout the millenia mentioned this possibility?

Zev Steinhardt

107

Moderator speaketh:
Noiles: When I speak as Moderator, it’s not a question of “offending” me, it’s a question of you following the Rules that I’m supposed to be enforcing. When you’re caught speeding, you’re not “offending” the traffic cop. I agree that there is some room for confusion, because I am both Moderator (think: traffic cop) for this forum and also a participant in it. However, I think it’s pretty clear when I’m commenting on forum rules and when I’m commenting on Noah.

I did not “censure” Chronos because his comments were made before my first warning (Post #95 in this thread.) You chose to disregard that warning and to post off topic, and therefore you receive the pointed comment in my second warning.

Second, I didn’t catch your gratuitous insults aimed at Zev. My apologies, Zev, for not having seen that. Noiles, be aware that personal insults directed at another poster are not permitted in this forum. If you wish to continue posting here, you will refrain from such in future.

108

Oh it is there…but it is you that can’t see it…

Why did the Jews reject the risen Christ?

Why did those who saw the miracles still not believe?

Hardness of heart I would guess.

It matters not what Jewish commentators say about this story.

If a thousand people say somethig stupid it is still stupid.

So now if you laugh at a drunk who is your father, that is a reason for your father to curse your son, who by the way is not even born yet, and who knows if you will even have one… Who is the one who is seeing stories that aren’t there? :smack:

His mother is mentioned, if you, for the umpteenth time, uncover your fathers nakedness, it is a euphemism; (an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive) for having sex with your mother. You just don’t want to get it do you?

109

Because he wasn’t the Messiah. But that’s off-topic here.

Because we don’t believe someone is the messiah on the basis of miracles. But that’s off-topic too.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point. If the story was so obvious (as plain as the nose on my face, as you put it), then surely someone would have brought up the possibility. But no one did. It’s as plain as the nose on your face, my friend, that the story you are putting forth is not as plain as the nose on my face.

Who says that Canaan wasn’t born at this juncture? I think it’s plain from the reading of the verse that he was around. Since Canaan was Ham’s fourth son, this story obviously takes place sometime after the flood.

I understand it, but it doesn’t always mean that. In the verses in Leviticus, for example, the expression only comes after the explicit mention of having relations with the person in question. It doesn’t say “don’t uncover your father’s nakednesss…” It says in Leviticus (20:11) A man who sleeps with his father’s wife is uncovering his father’s nakedness…" IOW, the expression only has that meaning when combined with the explicit mention. Or do you think that Saul was accusing Jonathan of sleeping with one of his parents based on I Samuel 20:30 (“your mother’s nakedness.”)?

Zev Steinhardt

110

(Moderators–I know this is off the point of the thread, but I don’t think a major error of scientific fact should be allowed to slip by in the fracas, uncorrected.)

Due to the Earth’s precession, the celestial north pole moves, and has moved significantly since the time the Book of Job was written (whenever that was), by (back of the envelope calculation) something like the width of 20 or 30 full moons. So the contention that the Book of Job accurately describes the area of the celestial north pole is neither right nor wrong, but meaningless.

111

Sigh Yes, I was aware of precession… I was simplifying.

But, in any event, even if Polaris wasn’t the NS when Job was written, there are enough stars in the “general vicinity” that to say that there are no stars “north of the Earth” is wrong. And, (unless I understand Nolies wrong, he would state that the Bible is always scientifically accurate, even now.

Zev Steinhardt

112

Zev,

Your logic of “since no one ever thought of it before so it can’t be true” is without merit.

I don’t want to get censured again so I will not go in to the rejection of the RISEN CHRIST, which was the evidence that he was.

So one can mean the other if you don’t want to be vulgar. Your definition of the story is convoluted and not based on scripture but JEWISH commentaries.

With your version look what Noah becomes.

Yeah, that is a great man that Noah, for cursing his grandson for the supposed sin of his father. What kind of God is it you think this bible speaks of? A unjust God who would honor a curse on a man who did no wrong but a just one would not. God did honor the curse. Noah was a just man as the bible clearly says. **Genesis 6:9 - These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. **

So why did Noah suddenly become so unjust? Your interpretation makes no sense and is in contradiction to what we know about the character of Noah.

But if what I say is true then cursing Canaan is a good thing. Just like calling a child out of wedlock, a bastard is a good thing. You need to shun these things so that people will avoid the behavior that creates them. If a mother’s bastard child is shunned then women will not allow themselves to be seduced. They will not want their child to bear public scorn. So Noah cursing Canaan is just what a just man who walked with God would do to the product of an incestuous relationship.

Now whose interpretation comes together more completely with the totality of the entire story from beginning to end.

Mine or your so called Jewish scholars…?

113

Getting back to the subject of fermentation and whether it was around before it was mentioned in Genesis 9:

I said:

And Nolies said:

You apparently think that fermentation requires a lack of oxygen, otherwise known as an “anaerobic” environment. This is incorrect.

Read about oxygen and fermentation.
http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter6-9-3.html

The yeast actually requires oxygen in order to grow. If there isn’t enough oxygen available to it, it will not grow, and fermentation will not take place.

I have been unable to find anything on the Internet that says that yeast growth is affected by increased atmospheric pressure. I am going to assume that it isn’t; if you have information to the contrary, please post it. However, be aware that here at the Straight Dope it is not considered sufficient for you to merely assert that a thing (such as “greater atmospheric pressure affects yeast growth”) is true–you are also expected to post a cite backing your statement up.

But atmospheric pressure is one thing–oxygen levels is another thing.

Fermentation requires oxygen. If there were higher oxygen levels before the Flood, then there would have been even more yeast organisms, and even more fermentation taking place.

So your understanding–that a higher atmospheric oxygen content before the Flood would have prevented alcohol-forming yeasts, and fermentation, from coming into existence–is wrong.

Question: Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your understanding of the process of fermentation was correct (which it isn’t), and that higher oxygen levels before the Flood acted to suppress the existence of alcohol-forming yeasts (which they didn’t), and assuming that oxygen levels after the Flood fell sufficiently to allow alcohol-forming yeasts to come into existence (which they didn’t)–then where did those yeasts come from? If higher oxygen levels and higher atmospheric pressure prevented them from coming into existence before the Flood, then where did they come from? I repeat my previous question–Did God do another, second Creation, in order to create alcohol-forming yeasts just in time for Noah?

And if He did, then the obvious question would be, what else did He apparently have afterthoughts about, and added to the Species List on Planet Earth “the day after”?

This is completely irrelevant: six-foot dragonflies lived hundreds of millions of years ago, which is hundreds of millions of years before primates even evolved, let alone humans, let alone Noah. Oxygen levels during the time of the dinosaurs have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

114

We do actually have a forum for witnessing: Great Debates. Feel free to go over there and start a “witnessing” thread.

115

No, but it makes your claim of “it’s as obvious as the nose on your face” rather specious.

I’m curious as to what your evidence is. I think I’ll open up another thread on that in GD. But before I do so, is your evidence going to be simply “the Bible says so?” Because if so, I won’t bother. To keep this from going off-topic, just let me know if your case is deeper than that. If so, I’ll start the thread.

Are you, a true-believer, calling Leviticus vulgar because it explicitly mentions what is forbidden?

And the JEWISH commentaries that you so disparage, don’t you think that they’re based on the Scripture? Or do you think that they pull everything out of thin air?

In “my” version, Noah is a righteous man whom God chooses to save from the flood. He’s saved on the basis of his personal merit, not his gene pool.

He follows God’s command, builds and ark and gathers up the animals. He (and his family) care for the animals for a full year in a (pardon the term) Herculean manner. He (and his family) work literally around-the-clock caring for the animals.

After the year of the flood is ended, he exits the ark with his family, at God’s command. Perhaps the enormity of the destruction of the flood gets to him, perhaps he’s worn down from the tremendous job he’s done. Maybe he’s intimidated at the fact that he and his small family have to rebuild civilization. Whatever the reason, he plants a vineyard and gets drunk. (There’s no indication, anywhere, that wine was unknown prior to this. Asserting so is like saying that wolves aren’t mentioned in the Bible until Jacob’s blessing to Benjamin in Genesis 49, so they didn’t exist in the Garden of Eden).

In his drunken stupor, his son Ham does something to him. What? Good question… there are several possibilities. He may have simply mocked him, he may have raped him, he may even have castrated him. But whatever happened to Noah clearly happen to him (asher asah lo - “that was done to him” the verse says.). It’s also clear that whatever happened was sexual in nature.

Whatever it is that happened, Ham went and told his brothers about it. They were shocked. That someone would do something like this to another person was bad enough, but that he left their father lying exposed in his tent was adding insult to injury.

In order to preserve what was left of their father’s dignity, Shem and Yafes took a garment and entered their father’s tent backwards, so as not to see their father in that state. Walking backwards, they covered their father in a manner so that they would not see what was happening.

Upon awakening, Noah became aware of what was done to him. Furious with shame and anger, he curses Canaan.

Now, you can validly ask the question… if Ham did something to Noah, why did he curse Canaan? There are a number of answers given by the JEWISH commentators you so disparage. Among them are:

[ul]
[li]Canaan also participated[/li][li]By his actions, Ham caused Noah to be unable to father a fourth son, so his fourth son was cursed.[/li][li]Since God already blessed Ham, it would be inappropriate for him (Noah) to curse him[/li][li]And others…[/li][/ul]

In this version, Shem and Yafes’ actions make sense. In this version, people who are not mentioned (Noah’s wife) aren’t needlessly brought into the story. In this version, there is no unnecessary “nine-month wait” between Noah’s awakening and his curse. In this version, there is no need to extrapolate wrongdoing to those who did no wrong (Noah’s wife).

I would say that “my” version is more probable and sensible.

Zev Steinhardt

116

Dang coding. Can a mod please fix that up for me? Thanks.

Zev Steinhardt

117

Never mind the reply, Nolies, I changed my mind about waiting. You are hereby free to present your evidence for the resurrection of Jesus here.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Zev Steinhardt

118

This may get me in trouble since it is off subject but here is how alcohol is formed not just gas bubbles…

Alcohol fermentation is the formation of alcohol from sugar. Yeast, when under anaerobic conditions, convert glucose to pyruvic acid via the glycolysis pathways, then go one step farther, converting pyruvic acid into ethanol, a C-2 compound.

I may be wrong but there seems to be an added step in this process and I will leave it at that…

119

Perhaps the enormity of the destruction of the flood gets to him, perhaps he’s worn down from the tremendous job he’s done. Maybe he’s intimidated at the fact that he and his small family have to rebuild civilization. Whatever the reason, he plants a vineyard and gets drunk. (There’s no indication, anywhere, that wine was unknown prior to this. Asserting so is like saying that wolves aren’t mentioned in the Bible until Jacob’s blessing to Benjamin in Genesis 49, so they didn’t exist in the Garden of Eden).

Perhaps? are you kidding me. Perhaps it was aliens who flooded the earth…
There is also no indication for any of what you have just said, you just pulled that out of thin air. There is no indication that there was wine either so your argument is specious at best.

In his drunken stupor, his son Ham does something to him. What? Good question… there are several possibilities. He may have simply mocked him, he may have raped him, he may even have castrated him. But whatever happened to Noah clearly happen to him (asher asah lo - "that was done to him" the verse says.). It’s also clear that whatever happened was sexual in nature.*
And again in your oh so woodenly literal way you never even mention the possibility that it could have been a figure of speech, see the well established figure of speech 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.
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.
Leviticus 18:16 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.Leviticus 18:8 - The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness it could have been sex with his mother and not really Noah at all.

Upon awakening, Noah became aware of what was done to him. Furious with shame and anger, he curses Canaan.

Again a figure of speech, see the well established figure of speech 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.
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.
Leviticus 18:16 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
Leviticus 18:8 - The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

And since Noah is a righteous man he curses the offspring of the incestuous relationship.

I am using firmly establish biblical metaphor and you are pulling junk out of thin air.

[ul]
[li]Canaan also participated[/li][li]By his actions, Ham caused Noah to be unable to father a fourth son, so his fourth son was cursed.[/li][li]Since God already blessed Ham, it would be inappropriate for him (Noah) to curse him[/li][li]And others…[/li][/ul]

None of these ideas are in the passages, even in an obscure way that could be gotten from reading it. So they have to as you put it…Pulled it out of thin air.

**In this version, Shem and Yafes’ actions make sense. In this version, people who are not mentioned (Noah’s wife) aren’t needlessly brought into the story. In this version, there is no unnecessary “nine-month wait” between Noah’s awakening and his curse. In this version, there is no need to extrapolate wrongdoing to those who did no wrong (Noah’s wife). **

In this version, there is no need to extrapolate wrongdoing to those who did no wrong (Noah’s wife).

No one ever said Noah’s wife did something wrong. Extrapolation is not what is going on when you use the firmly established metaphor to see who is really being talked about.

In your version you have not explained why Canaan was cursed. Other than some Jewish commentator said this or postulated that.

In either version Noah’s other son’s actions would still make sense, covering their mother.
In your version you deny the fact that the figure of speech for having sex with someone’s wife is called, uncovering their nakedness. It is used at least 4 times in the bible so I would say that I am on solid ground with that one.

Keep it up you are loosing this one…

120

I never said that aliens flooded the earth. I’m perfectly willing to believe that God did it, as He said He would.

Your assertion that there was no wine before the flood is completely astonishing. So, are you asserting that there were no wolves since there is no mention of them before Genesis 49? Are you assserting that there were no figs since there was no mention of them before the mention of a promised land? Just because wine wasn’t mentioned prior to the flood does not mean that it did not exist.

In any event, wouldn’t you agree that the flood had a great affect on Noah? I think that it would have a profound effect on anyone. My hypothesis is not totally off the wall.

Furthermore, just because the Torah does not ascribe reasons for Noah’s becoming drunk doesn’t mean that there aren’t any simple reasons for it. Just because an event or cause isn’t mentioned in the Torah doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Again, I make the point to you - in the examples that you gave “uncovered nakedness” only means “sleep with” because it explicitly mentions it in the verse. It does no such thing in the verse here in Genesis. And again, I ask you, if one’s “nakedness” always indicates sex, would you say that Jonathan slept with his mother based on the verse in Samuel that I quoted?

So, again, I ask you - did Jonathan sleep with his mother? Is that what Saul was accusing him of?

Is Noah more righteous than God? God doesn’t curse the offspring of incestuous and adulterous unions, but the “evildoers” themselves. Please look at Dueteronomy 27:19-23. Is God cursing the offspring of those unions? No, he’s cursing the sinners themselves.

True, you are using a Biblical metaphor, but you are using it in such a way as to make the rest of the story meaningless. Again, what was the point of Shem and Yafes covering up their father if Ham slept with his mother?
[ul]
[li]Canaan also participated[/li][li]By his actions, Ham caused Noah to be unable to father a fourth son, so his fourth son was cursed.[/li][li]Since God already blessed Ham, it would be inappropriate for him (Noah) to curse him[/li][li]And others…[/li][/ul]

None of these ideas are in the passages, even in an obscure way that could be gotten from reading it. So they have to as you put it…Pulled it out of thin air.

[/quote]

Neither is the fact that Canaan resulted from an adulterous/incestuous union. You pulled that out of thin air too. At least I relied on millenia of Jewish thought and commentary. What have you got?

They covered their FATHER.

Sigh.

All you have is “father’s nakedness” = slept with his mother. That’s all you have, and you don’t care how it completely twists the rest of the story.

In any event, I’m willing to leave it up to the judgement of the Teeming Millions. I’ve made my case and you have yours.

And I’m still waiting for you to present your evidence of the resurrection in the other thread.

Zev Steinhardt