Did alcohol cause Noah to promote the first act of homosexuality?

[Chris L.]

On an IFB church website that I was looking at they stated that Genesis 9:20-24 is the first recorded act of homosexuality and that alcohol was partially to blame. I've read these verses and found nothing suggesting that Noah and Ham had "lied with each other".

I also got into an argument with an IFB at work who said that this was indeed true, and that there was some kind of wording in the Greek (I had to correct him that it was Hebrew and not Greek but never mind...) that indicated that Noah and Ham had lied with each other.

If it is true that the Hebrew does indicate a homosexual encounter between Noah and Ham, than the KJV and most other bibles must be a poor translation of it, as at best it's meaning is not altogether clear, and at worse is just plain false. Also, if it was true than Noah should've been cursed right along with Ham for being a drunken homosexual!

I take these verses at face value, that Ham walked in and saw his father naked and did nothing about it, mabye he even thought it was funny when he told his brothers (scripture doesn't say that but it was possible).

If we understand the culture and the times, being naked was very shameful and humiliating and would've warranted outrage from the righteous Noah after he found out what had happened. I also must say I find it hard to believe that alcohol could cause and old man like Noah to have sex with his own son (the incident with Lot's daughters was different, they were of the opposite sex and were veiled, pretending to be someone else). Also, to suggest that alcohol might cause an otherwise normal person to become a child molester or a homosexual (it seems some IFBer's actually believe this) is a bit ridiculous. Alcohol can cause someone to lose control and/or inhibitions but those people would've already had those tendencies whether they were drunk or not.

I'm also concerned about this because IFBer's are thought of having some kind of obsession with homosexuality by the unsaved and some other Christians and teachings like this only reinforce those beliefs, which ultimately brings damage the cause of Christ.

We ought not to inject our own culture and our own biases against alcohol or homosexuality or whatever else into bible verses to make them say something they don't.

Are there any IFBer's that would care to elaborate or show me where I'm going wrong here?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Methinks they are reading something into the Scriptures than out of them.

However a quick web search shows that there are a variety of wacky interpretations of this passage, including one that suggests that Ham had relations with his mother while Noah was drunk, thus 'uncovering his father's nakedness' after the manner of Leviticus 18:8.

I would think that the 'homosexual' interpretation is that of a small number of IFB's and that most would agree that it was a matter of Ham mocking his father's nakedness.

 

[faithgirl46]

Say what. If this was true, why did God choose Noah to uild theark and why wasn't he wiped out in the big flood??

 

[Brother Bob]

And then desperation sets in!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[chickenlady]

You don't know exactly what happened. All we know is that he was thinking of his father and he "had done" something in a sexual way, since his father was naked, and the other two sons wanted to cover him up. Since they are both males (noah and ham), that would be homosexual. From reading it myself, it seems like he saw him naked and lusted over his own dad. It does sound too sick to believe, but that stuff happens out there and has been since the beginning of time. Not sure how far it went. I'm assuming that Noah was asleep during the whole thing, and he was angry enough to curse Ham's liniage by saying they would be in slavery. If I am correct, the first instance where drunkeness is mentioned in the bible - it had to do with something sexual (naked noah and his son). The second instance is incest (Lot and his daughters). Both sexual perversions happened the first and second instances with drunkeness. Sounds pretty sick and wicked doesn't it, but not much has changed in this world.

 

[Brother Bob]

You don't know exactly what happened. All we know is that he was thinking of his father and he "had done" something in a sexual way. Since they are both males, that would be homosexual. I'm assuming that Noah was asleep during the whole thing, and he was angry enough to curse Ham's liniage by saying they would be in slavery.

The sin was to look upon his father naked. Where in the world do you get "had done" somethingin a sexual way?

Yikes!!!! Sometimes I think "google" is the worst thing that ever happened to the internet.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Most believe that Ham's sin was some sort of sexual perversion connected with looking at his father's nakedness. The phrase "uncover nakedness" or "look at nakedness" is not merely passing by someone in a state of dress. If you search this out in Scripture, you will see that it means some sort of unspecified sexual activity.

We do not know exacty what Ham did.

We do know that Noah's drunkenness led to his part of it.

Someone said, if this was true, then why did God choose Noah to build the ark rather than wiping him out in the flood. The most obvious answer is that this was after the flood, not before.

 

[chickenlady]

Gen 9:24

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

 

[Scarlett O.]

There is with no certainity whatsoever that anyone can say that Ham committed a sexually immoral act with or to his father. It just can't be pulled from the following verses. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but to look at the King James Version, which is the version most applicable to this theory, (I'll explain that) I just don't see it.

I'll use the KJ (Which I enjoy reading, by the way.)

Verses 22-24 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japeth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him."

I see it like this:

• Noah got drunk and ended up naked and sprawled out like a bum in his tent, pathetic.
• Ham, having never seen his father like this, drunk and naked, was either amused or viewed him with disgust or had some type of negative reaction. But verse 22 does in no way imply sexual contact or even lust.
• He told his brothers, not to help his father, but to mock him. Note the absense of Mrs. Noah. Could he not have told her about it?
• His brothers couldn't fix their father's drunkeness, but covered him up.
• I said that the KJ version lends itself to the homosexual theory in the phrase, "knew what his younger son did". Other translations say, "found out what he did" or "was told what he did". But even going with the KJ version, I don't see "knew what his he did" as meaning that he did something sexual or carnal.

I just don't see it. But that isn't to say that because I don't see that I am necessary and automatically right.

 

[Scarlett O.]

.....oh, and by-the-by....

Here's a really good commentary comparing Genesis 1-3 with Genesis 6-9. In other words, comparing the original fall to Ham's fall.

Here's a small portion. Go to the link for the whole thing.

http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/19167/2822/3


"6. Ham's sin
A. In the parallels that exist between Gen. 1-3 and Gen. 6-9, this event stands as a parallel to the fall:

• Nonfunctional cosmos 1:2 7:17-24
• Cosmos made functional 1:3-2:4 8:1-22
• Blessing given 1:26-30 9:1-8
• Plant connected with fall 2:9 9:20
• Naked and unaware 2:25 9:21
• Offense 3:1-6 9:22-23
• Eyes opened, awareness 3:7 9:24
• and Pronouncement 3:14-19 9:25-27

B. The precise nature of Ham's sin has been much debated. But this debate may simply be the result of western sensibilities obscuring ancient eastern reality. Typically, some sexual impropriety is suggested ranging from Ham committing incest with his mother, homosexual activity with his father or even castrating his father (Walton, 346). Yet all of these are contradicted by the action of Shem and Japheth. The sin is in fact looking upon the nakedness of his father and reveling in his shameful act. "If the covering was an adequate remedy, it follows that the misdemeanor was confined to seeing" (Cassuto, 151). Some have objected that the verdict is too grave for such a sin, but again this does not take into account ANE sensibilities regarding nakedness and parental honor. (A plausible case can be made for something short of incest with his mother, see Walton, 348, although he fails of fully endorsing the position)."

 

[Pastor Larry]

It may well have been confined to seeing, but look up the phrase about looking on someone's nakedness, and it reveals that there is a sexual overtone to it.

Some do believe that Ham was repulsed by his father's nakedness, but it is hard to justify that with the curse. Why would being repulsed over seeing a naked father in an embarrassingly drunken state bring a curse?

Those two things (use of phrase elsewhere and the curse) indicate that there was something sexual that took place, even if it was not direct sexual contact. Again, we don't know for sure.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The Hebrew word for 'saw' in Genesis 9:22 is the word 'ra'ah'. It is translated as:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
7200. ra'ah
[SIZE=-1]Search for H7200 in KJVSL[/SIZE] har ra'ah raw-aw' a primitive root; to see, literally or figuratively (in numerous applications, direct and implied, transitive, intransitive and causative):--advise self, appear, approve, behold, X certainly, consider, discern, (make to) enjoy, have experience, gaze, take heed, X indeed, X joyfully, lo, look (on, one another, one on another, one upon another, out, up, upon), mark, meet, X be near, perceive, present, provide, regard, (have) respect, (fore-, cause to, let) see(-r, -m, one another), shew (self), X sight of others, (e-)spy, stare, X surely, X think, view, visions.


While 'saw' can be translated as 'had experience with' in some instances, I do not believe it means it here. If it did mean 'had experience with' in this verse, then Ham would have, in fact, had a homosexual experience with his father Noah. But, I do not believe it was this way.

My reasoning? After seeing his father's nakedness, he went out of the tent and told Shem and Japheph. I do not think he would have told them he had committed such an abominable act such as sodomy.

 

[chickenlady]

maybe it wasn't sodomy, but homosexual in nature. Not to sound lude here but he probably had a little bit of "happy time" while watching his dad. Usually father's dont place curses on their son and everybody born from them and after over nothing. I can imagine, Noah was quite offended when he woke up, seeing what his son had done, and I'd be a little disgusted at him myself.

Look at the second instance of the bible of being drunk with wine, it involves sexual sin. I don't need a lexington to look at the similarities in the bible. No good things have come out of drunkenness and the bible uses these illustrations to show us how God feels about alcohol. We aren't supposed to even look at the stuff, let alone drink it. (prov 23:31)

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Someone said, if this was true, then why did God choose Noah to build the ark rather than wiping him out in the flood. The most obvious answer is that this was after the flood, not before.

It can also be said that God uses those who are weak and fallen, or he would not be able to use any of us...

 

[Brother Bob]

Gen 9:24

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

He saw his nakedness and that is all it says. Anything more it just in our own minds. To out and out say, it was sexual and maybe sodomy, is just plain going into the world of fantasy.
Noah, could of been asleep and in an aroused way and Ham thought it was funny (that could be your overtone, you speak of) and told his brothers. It does happen to men, you know. Well, maybe you don't know if you not a man. There was a reason for telling his brothers and if it was sodomy, I doubt very seriously, he would of told anyone, for I think it meant death in those days. If it were not just seeing him naked then why did the brothers, back in to cover Noah up, so they did not do the same thing.
If you have no scripture saying it was homo, then I think its wrong to lean in that direction.

Can you guess who probably started this as being homosexual? It don't take a "rocket scientist".
Anyway, it is how I understand the scripture. I think homosexuals would love to make this into a homo act, when its just not there. Also, I don't know where those who say it was something "sexual" are getting that. You can't compare Gen. with Lev.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

He saw his nakedness and that is all it says. Anything more it just in our own minds. To out and out say, it was sexual and maybe sodomy, is just plain going into the world of fantasy.
Noah, could of been asleep and in an aroused way and Ham thought it was funny (that could be your overtone, you speak of) and told his brothers. It does happen to men, you know. Well, maybe you don't know if you not a man. There was a reason for telling his brothers and if it was sodomy, I doubt very seriously, he would of told anyone, for I think it meant death in those days. If it were not just seeing him naked then why did the brothers, back in to cover Noah up, so they did not do the same thing.
If you have no scripture saying it was homo, then I think its wrong to lean in that direction.

Can you guess who probably started this as being homosexual? It don't take a "rocket scientist".
Anyway, it is how I understand the scripture. I think homosexuals would love to make this into a homo act, when its just not there. Also, I don't know where those who say it was something "sexual" are getting that. You can't compare Gen. with Lev.

and a hearty 'AMEN!' Brother Bob.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It can also be said that God uses those who are weak and fallen, or he would not be able to use any of us...

This is true, but I was just studying today in prep for Sunday in Gen 6-8 that God placed Noah in teh ark because of his righteousness. Noah was a sinner just like everyone else, but he had found grace in God and that caused him to live differently.

After seeing his father's nakedness, he went out of the tent and told Shem and Japheph. I do not think he would have told them he had committed such an abominable act such as sodomy.

I am inclined, at least somewhat, to believe that he thought his brothers would also find pleasure in this, so he told them.

He saw his nakedness and that is all it says. Anything more it just in our own minds. To out and out say, it was sexual and maybe sodomy, is just plain going into the world of fantasy.
Noah, could of been asleep and in an aroused way and Ham thought it was funny (that could be your overtone, you speak of) and told his brothers. It does happen to men, you know. Well, maybe you don't know if you not a man. There was a reason for telling his brothers and if it was sodomy, I doubt very seriously, he would of told anyone, for I think it meant death in those days. If it were not just seeing him naked then why did the brothers, back in to cover Noah up, so they did not do the same thing.

I think while talking about what the text doesn't say, you sure read a lot into it. Here's the bottom line: Ham saw his father's nakedness, whatever that means, and received a curse on his entire progeny. That sounds a little more serious that his dad sleeping in a funny way.

If you have no scripture saying it was homo, then I think its wrong to lean in that direction.

You have no Scripture saying it was anything else, so why lean that way?

Can you guess who probably started this as being homosexual? It don't take a "rocket scientist".
Anyway, it is how I understand the scripture. I think homosexuals would love to make this into a homo act, when its just not there.

Actually, I think the opposite. Why would a homosexual want this to be homosexual? It shows God's clear condemnation of homosexuality, if it was indeed homosexuality, or some kind of fantasy.

Also, I don't know where those who say it was something "sexual" are getting that. You can't compare Gen. with Lev.

We are getting it from the ideas in the text.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

This is true, but I was just studying today in prep for Sunday in Gen 6-8 that God placed Noah in teh ark because of his righteousness. Noah was a sinner just like everyone else, but he had found grace in God and that caused him to live differently.

I think we are pretty much on the same page here. However I would say the key is God's grace, not his righteousness. Noah's righteousness was as filthy rags just like the rest of us.

 

[Brother Bob]

He saw his nakedness and that is all it says. Anything more it just in our own minds. To out and out say, it was sexual and maybe sodomy, is just plain going into the world of fantasy.

Noah, could of been asleep and in an aroused way and Ham thought it was funny (that could be your overtone, you speak of) and told his brothers. It does happen to men, you know. Well, maybe you don't know if you not a man. There was a reason for telling his brothers and if it was sodomy, I doubt very seriously, he would of told anyone, for I think it meant death in those days. If it were not just seeing him naked then why did the brothers, back in to cover Noah up, so they did not do the same thing. I think while talking about what the text doesn't say, you sure read a lot into it. Here's the bottom line: Ham saw his father's nakedness, whatever that means, and received a curse on his entire progeny. That sounds a little more serious that his dad sleeping in a funny way.​

I talked about what the scriptures say, you are the one bringing in it has sexual overtones. You don't know that whatsoever. You are just reaching in to the world of the unknown.​

If you have no scripture saying it was homo, then I think its wrong to lean in that direction. You have no Scripture saying it was anything else, so why lean that way?

I lean with the scriptures, you lean with fantasy. I can't in any way see sexual overtones unless you bring in Lev. which is entirely a different thing. It is talking about the father's wife in Lev.​

Can you guess who probably started this as being homosexual? It don't take a "rocket scientist".

Anyway, it is how I understand the scripture. I think homosexuals would love to make this into a homo act, when its just not there.​

Actually, I think the opposite. Why would a homosexual want this to be homosexual? It shows God's clear condemnation of homosexuality, if it was indeed homosexuality, or some kind of fantasy.​

That is indeed strange, to not see the benifit to the Homo that it happened even to Noah.​

Also, I don't know where those who say it was something "sexual" are getting that. You can't compare Gen. with Lev.​

We are getting it from the ideas in the text.​

Why not tell us what text, instead of making a blanket statement of which there is nothing sexual in the text.​

Give us the sexual quote so we all can read it.

Leviticus, chapter 20
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I don’t think Ham would of told and brought death upon himself.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well don't want to get too far off the OP here, but the Bible says Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord and also that he was a preacher of righteousness. So that might beg the question of what came first, the grace or the righteousness. Course we are talking OT here so...