The word for know someone carnally (sexually) is translated many different ways, depending on the context the meaning changes. As with words in all languages
In your example it is obvious that that is not the meaning. So to try to say that, because I am using the figure of speech here where it fits the story, that it must also mean the same thing in the verse you use, shows a lack of understanding about the nature of language. I know you are not that ignorant.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookGlyc.html
Here at the Straight Dope, it is not customary to quote someone from another website without giving a link to the quote; without the link, it makes it sound like the quote comes from you–which in this case, it doesn’t.
However…yeast will also produce ethanol under aerobic conditions.
http://www.gotmead.com/mead-research/glossary-a.shtml
Since you believe that yeast can only ferment in anaerobic conditions, your position is that there was too much oxygen in the atmosphere before the Flood to allow yeast to ferment.
However, you are still misunderstanding how fermentation works: it works in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. If there is oxygen available, it works aerobically. If there is no oxygen available, it works anaerobically.
So there was yeast working aerobically before the Flood, fermenting, making use of the abundant oxygen in the atmosphere.
Interesting that you say that.
The word “to know” yadah in Hebrew also denotes sexual relations. One example is in Genesis (4:25) where it says “And Adam knew va-yeidah his wife again…” The context here is clearly sexual relations - and this is also a common euphamism for sex. Can we not agree on this?
Well, now fast forward to our verse (9:24) where it says “And Noah knew va-yeida (same word) what his son did…”
I submit to you, based on the Scriptural text and using the common expression of “knowing=sex” that Ham had illicit relations with his father and not his mother. This also now makes sense of what Shem and Yafes did as well.
How do you answer this?
Zev Steinhardt
So here we have evidence that the expression “uncover one’s nakedness” is not always synonymous with cuckolding that person. Therefore, the use of the expression “Ham uncovered Noah’s nakedness” is not, by itself, sufficient evidence that Ham slept with his mother. It might be indicative, if there were any other evidence, but by itself, we’re free to conclude that the phrase means the same thing here as it does for Jonathan.
So, do you have any other evidence, aside from that one phrase (which you yourself admit is insufficient evidence), that Ham slept with his mother?
DDG,
I thought about putting the link, but since I type slow and all I was doing was providing evidence of anaerobic fermentation I felt it was irrelevant.
I do dat in da future cents dats the way it be round here… 
Whether or not fermentation could have happened before the flood we will never know since the earth was much different. How would it, being under 2 atmospheric pressures, for yeast to create alcohol?
I say that the conditions weren’t favorable for it, while it may have happened but under those conditions it may slow it so as to be very weak wine .05% by volume.
If you look at the text pre-flood when God is slamming all of the sins drunkenness is not mentioned. It would have been easy for God to put in they were drunkard. Plus if Noah was a just man and walked with God he would not have been a drunk. He would have known about wine and the effects of intoxication that it produces. So if he was like God said, a righteous man he would not have gotten drunk. But it seems that he didn’t know the effects.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
11The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.**
Just a thought…
Zev,
Heard that one before and I don’t buy it. If he had done that to him he would have killed him and not cursed his son.
The problem that guys like you have is that you don’t want to know and that any amount of evidence or logical figures of speech will be denied. If I could stand in front of you and do miracles in which I told you by who’s power they came, you would still deny them.
Do you believe that angels had sex with women in the pre-flood days or that it is even possible for that to happen?
Chronos,
Bark doesn’t always mean noise make by a dog. My hypothesis is just as valid as any and if you look elsewhere in the bible when sex happened and a child was created outside of the bounds that God has set, it usually meant trouble for those that God was working with. Take Ishmael, his descendants cause trouble for Israel to this day. The descendants of Canaan did the same. If you can accept that it is just as logical to believe that in this instance “uncovered his father’s nakedness” means that Ham had sex with his mother. Since it can mean that, then the rest of the story follows along very easily.
Nolies–just a quick question from someone who’s studied the Bible a fair amount, but is far from a Biblical scholar. Why are you so hung up on the idea that no other interpretation of this verse is even possible? You seem to have implied that people like Zev are willfully blind to the truth, twisting the Biblical text beyond recognition to reach the desired result. And yet many individuals–both scholars and laity–have different interpretations of these passages, despite being devout Jews and Christians. Are they all just denying things that are as plain as the nose on your face? If so, why? This is hardly an instead of “the devil citing Scripture” to serve his purpose. No one’s using this verse to justify sinful behavior, or heretical doctrine. They just think it means something different than you do. Isn’t it possible that they are doing so because that’s what they honestly think it means? And isn’t there just the tiniest possibility that they’re right? Or is Nolies the be-all and end-all of Biblical exegesis?
I don’t know about that. I can think of two reasons off the bat why Noah didn’t kill Ham:
Noah was quite a bit older than Ham and may not have been physically able to kill him.
He was just told by God about the consequences of killing someone (9:6-7) and therefore didn’t want to kill someone.
The problem with “guys like you” is that you display the very same obstinance you accuse me of.
As to your hypothetical query… we don’t believe someone is a prophet or divine simply by being able to work wonders. Pharoh’s magicians were able to duplicate the first two plagues brought on Egypt and able to turn staves into serpents, but I somehow suspect that you aren’t going to follow their word. The witch of Endor was able to bring back Samuel’s spirit from the dead, but I somehow suspect that you wouldn’t give her much credence if she commanded you to do something. Balaam was able to call down Divine blessings and curses, but I don’t think you’ll be looking to him as a role model.
I’m assuming that the verse you are referring to is Genesis 6:2, correct? You are translating bnei elo-him as angels. While there are some bibles that translate that verse that way, I (and Jewish bibles universally) don’t.
For starters, if it meant “angels” would it not have said malachim? (the literal word for angel - as used in the story of Balaam and other places?
The fact of the matter is that the word elo-him does not necessarily refer to the divine. While it does often refer to the Divine, the terms refers to one who has power and authority (as God does). As proof of the fact that elo-him does not always refer to God, I point you to Exodus 4:17, where it says that Moses will be an elo-him (leader, in this context) to Aaron. Or are you maintaining that Exodus 4 says that Moses is a god?
So, the answer to your question is no, angels (who are non-corporeal beings and cannot have sex) did not have sex with women.
And I’m still waiting for you to present your evidence in the other thread.
Zev Steinhardt
It’s also kind of curious that you talk about refuting “logical figures of speech.”
Here, you presented your entire case simply based on “father’s nakedness” = “having sex with your father’s wife” because, as we “all know” the one is a common euphamism for the other.
Yet, here I present you with an even more well-known euphamism (“knowing” = “sex”) and you dismiss it out of hand without even bothering to refute it.
Why is your use of a lesser-used euphamism better than my use of a more-used euphamism? At least with mine, the rest of the story makes sense.
Zev Steinhardt
Ummmmm…I am looking at the text–and not only do I not see God “slamming all of the sins”, I also don’t see any sins mentioned by name at all.
From Genesis 6, NIV:
Or, if you prefer, theKing James Version:
No sins mentioned. Just generic “wickedness”, “violence”, and “corruption”.
What is your basis for believing, first, that oxygen levels before the Flood were higher, and second, that after the Flood they were lower? Why do you believe that?
Again, please, let’s stick to Noah, OK? However, I feel obliged to note that we’ve had a staff report: In the Bible, who were the “giant sons of God”?
… and there are other threads commenting on this earlier Staff Report, namely:
Well, in Nolies defense, this is kind of related. He and I disagreed as to the reason why God chose Noah to begin with. He held that it was because Noah’s geneaology was completely human (free from intermarriage with angels) whereas I maintained that it was because of personal merit on his behalf.
But, nonetheless, we’ll stick to the topic at hand.
Zev Steinhardt
Opus1,
Well is seems clear to me that if we all believe that it means something different. One of us is wrong or all of us are wrong. Since I haven’t had to go to some short of external postulation but used the bible to interpret the bible. I must believe that my way is the correct way. God is not the author of confusion and we need to get on the same page as him correct?
I have one for you that has stumped bible scholars for decades but is plainly clear to me.
Matthew 16
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 10
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Mark 8 38-9:1
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
So Jesus clearly states that those who are hearing what he his is saying, some of them will still be alive when he returns again. We know that that did not happen they all died. Now if Jesus can’t lie, and if he is God then he would have known this right. So how can we make sense of this obvious error in his statement?
If you are like many you will get lost in the details and not stand back and look at the big picture. If your basic perception on the nature of God and how he relates to his creation is wrong, then the bible has many verses that just don’t make sense. Can you explain to me how the God of the universe Omnipotent, and all else could get this so blatantly wrong? Oh by the way the transfiguration is not what these verses are plainly talking about.
I am sure that many believe that what they believe is correct and that is reasonable. Why, who doesn’t believe in what they say is true?
Zev,
Why, yes I am, but I would ask you what type of evidence would satisfy you? There is none is there? You can always come up with some reason to discount any evidence I may give, Historical, rational and alike. 12 people ignored all the overwhelming evidence that OJ was guilty because they didn’t want to see. It just goes to show human nature.
So, the answer to your question is no, angels (who are non-corporeal beings and cannot have sex)
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: 5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
As you can see here these angels eat, have feet, sleep, have hands and can pull someone out of the way. So to say that angels are not corporeal beings shows an immature knowledge of the bible.
DDG,
What is your basis for believing, first, that oxygen levels before the Flood were higher, and second, that after the Flood they were lower? Why do you believe that?
All I have to do is look at the fossil record and see the size of the animals. The small lung to body size ratio compared to animals of today. It would not have been much mind you, but, with the increase in pressure that had to be there for 6’ dragonflies to get air born as well as other flying dinosaurs. With a slightly higher O2 content and the increase in atmospheric pressure these animals could have thrived. But with out it they would have perished.
I suppose you don’t think that there ever was a global flood?
No, I don’t–because the very same fossil record that shows you the giant dragonfly fossils also shows that no such global flood ever took place. The notion of a world-wide flood that killed every animal on Earth except for what was in the Ark is not supported in either the geological or paleontological record.
If you believe that the giant dragonfly fossils are real (i.e. not faked), and if you believe that atmospheric oxygen levels were much higher in the past, then you must know that when we say “in the past”, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of years ago, not a few thousand. The giant dragonflies you are referring to thrived during the Carboniferous Period, which was 354 to 290 million years ago. 300 million years ago is 295 million years before even the first hominids emerged; it is 299,900,000 years before homo sapiens appeared.
Or do you believe that the giant dragonfly fossils are only a few thousand years old, not hundreds of millions?
Precisely what “animals” are you referring to here?
During the Carboniferous Period, the only animals that were around were, besides insects…
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857179.html
The only animals in that list that have lungs would be amphibians and reptiles, and possibly the land snails. However, I don’t find anything that says that Carboniferous amphibians and reptiles had smaller lungs proportionate to their body size than their modern counterparts.
Dragonflies do not have lungs; they breathe through holes in their abdomens called “spiracles”.
So what “animals” are you talking about, that had vastly smaller lung capacity during the Carboniferous than today?
There is no such thing as a “flying dinosaur”. There were, however, flying reptiles. Pterosaurs and pteranodons were reptiles, not dinosaurs.
Pterosaurs date from the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods. The Jurassic Period was 206 to 144 million years ago, and thus is separated from the increased oxgen atmospheric levels of the Carboniferous Period by 100 million years; these 100 million years comprise the Triassic and Permian periods. The giant dragonflies all went extinct during the Triassic, and thus we infer that oxygen levels fell then.
Pterosaurs did not need increased atmospheric pressure in order to fly. Recent engineering modeling has indicated that they simply–flew.
The Permian-Triassic Extinction was the greatest extinction event so far on Planet Earth. Latest research indicates that catastrophically low oxygen levels could have triggered it.
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prUW3.htm
Now, where in all this are you fitting Noah? If oxygen levels did in fact fall dramatically during the Permian Extinction, and if you require oxygen levels to have fallen at the time of the Flood, then that would put the Flood at 250 million years ago, and would mean that the human race is vastly older than scientists even suspect. Is that what you’re saying? That the entire archaeological, geological, paleontological, and historical record is wrong, and that homo sapiens has been around for 250 million years instead of 100,000?
Yes, but as I have pointed out to you, many other Biblical scholars, both Jew and Christian, have interpreted the verse differently than you, using nothing more than the Biblical text themselves. Many of them are more intelligent and knowledgable about the Bible than both of us combined. Or do you honestly believe that you are the only one to have done this?
I suppose another way of asking this question is: what would you say to convince someone who would say the exact same thing as I have quoted from you above, but come to a different conclusion?
Statements like this make me very suspicious. I’m reminded of a letter written to a chess publication some time ago, which in the previous issue had published a game between two Grandmasters, with yet another GM doing the annotation. A far lower-rated player wrote in claiming a flaw in both the play and the analysis, and expressing his surprise and joy at outsmarting the greatest chess players on the planet. The editor responded understatedly “Surprisingly, it is you, not Fischer or Tal, who has erred.”
If brilliant and educated Biblical scholars are “stumped” by a certain passage, or disagree as to its meaning, it seems to me the height of arrogance to claim to have interpreted it correctly and definitively.
[snipped passage from Matthew]
You have been admonished many times in this thread to stick to the story of Noah, and so I won’t take up your challenge to go off topic yet again. Feel free to post this elsewhere if it interests you sufficiently.
Yes, exactly. And how are you any different? Because you understand figurative language better than someone fluent in Hebrew? Because you stick to the text of the Bible (as do many others)? NOLIES, try to put yourself in the position of someone you is a devout Christian, believes every word of the Bible to be true, but understands the Noah story differently than you. Why should he switch to your position rather than you to his?
Well, not to put words in Zev’s mouth, but I have the hunch that his answer to this dilemma is that Jesus was not, in fact, the infallible Son of God.
As to your response to me,
The problem is that the rest of the story doesn’t follow along very easily. One can just as easily say that, since it can mean something else, the rest of the story follows along with other interpretations very easily. If there were any other indications that Ham had sex with Noah’s wife, then yes, you could say that it followed easily. So I ask again: Do you have any evidence, other than the the use of the phrase “uncovered his nakedness”, for your interpretation? If so, we’re prepared to hear it, but if not, your case is awfully weak.
Nolies, this is now the Second Official Warning from a Moderator in the same thread: STICK TO THE TOPIC. So far as I know, Jesus is not mentioned in the Noah story.* So far as I know, Jesus did not mention Noah, at least not in the quote you gave.
You are therefore once again wildly off topic.
Let me be clear – this is the last warning you will get.
If you want to post about Noah’s drunkeness, this thread is fine. The stuff about the Flood is actually off-topic, too, and doesn’t belong here. This forum is for discussion of the Staff Reports, and this thread is for discussion of the Staff Reports on the story of Noah’s drunkeness. Period.
If you want to get into a discussion about believing Jesus, that belongs in the forum called “Great Debates.” If you want to get into a discussion about whether the Flood actually happened, that belongs in the forum called “Great Debates.”
You are hereby instructed to read the FAQ, the Rules, and the Forum Descriptions.
Yes, I am the author of the Staff Report in question, but it is also my job to moderate this forum to keep things reasonably on track. I am posting now in that capacity, and you are warned that this thread is about the drunk Noah story and NOTHING ELSE.
Also, since you are new here, please note that it is now sundown on Friday, so the Orthodox Jewish posters (like Zev) will not be able to respond until after the Sabbath, meaning probably not until Sunday morning.
*[sup] Or are you suggesting that Noah’s curse on Ham was “Jesus Christ, Ham, what the hell are you doing?”[/sup]
Well, Dex, to be perfectly fair, the Flood does tie in–sort of–because Nolies’ position (I think) is that there was no fermentation before the Flood, and that the Flood somehow enabled fermentation, and so wine was, like, a new thing, and so Noah was unused to drinking and so got really, really drunk his first time out, too drunk to notice his son boinking his own mother, and so that therefore, that is what must have happened.
Sorry didn’t do that right and it got locked before I could post…
Agreed: Whether there was fermentation before the Flood is related (however tangentially). Whether there really was a world-wide flood is not. The Staff Report (part 1, anyhow) is about textual interpretation, not about meteorology… nor about reality, for that matter, except insofar as textual interpretation led to historic events (e.g., textual interpretation used to “confirm” keeping blacks in subservient status.)
Nolies, please remember that Zev will not be posting during the Sabbath, and so will not be here until Sunday morning at the earliest.