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

[rsr]

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

It's probably not who you think. John Gill — an unpuritanical Puritan — outlines the various traditions, quoting the rabbis:

... some of the Jewish Rabbins, as Jarchi relates, say that Canaan first saw it, and told his father of it; and some say, that he or Ham committed an unnatural crime with him; and others, that he castrated him; and hence, it is supposed, came the stories of Jupiter castrating his father Saturn, and Chronus his father Uranus: and Berosus says, that Ham taking hold of his father's genitals, and muttering some words, by a magic charm rendered him impotent: and some will have it that he committed incest with his father's wife;

So, it seems, such interpretations are of no recent provenance.

Gill goes on to say that "these things are said without foundation: what Noah's younger son did unto him, besides looking on him, we are not told, yet it was such as brought a curse on Canaan; and one would think it would be more than bare sight, nay, it is expressly said there was something done, but what is not said ..." (Italics added)

 

[Brother Bob]

... some of the Jewish Rabbins, as Jarchi relates, say that Canaan first saw it, and told his father of it; and some say, that he or Ham committed an unnatural crime with him; and others, that he castrated him; and hence, it is supposed, came the stories of Jupiter castrating his father Saturn, and Chronus his father Uranus: and Berosus says, that Ham taking hold of his father's genitals, and muttering some words, by a magic charm rendered him impotent: and some will have it that he committed incest with his father's wife;

All I have is the written word of God rsr. I find nothing of what was said by the Jewish Rabbis, which were some time after this took place, and after the flood itself. At least John Gill felt as I do, that "he only looked on him". It seems to me we should stick with the word, instead of making these dangereous statements. Not saying you did or anyone but it makes me wonder why the Rabbis wanted to add the sexual part to it. There are so many, trying to destroy the word, is why I make a strong pitch towards, if its not scripture, then we should leave it alone. There are many many people in this world, if they heard a statement like that, would believe it to be true and pass it on and on. Forgive me, but I stand for what the Scripture says and not some Jewish Rabbis. I found several statements on the subject and they all seem to reject the sexual part. Thank God,

Makes me wonder.

Read what some of the Rabbis wrote, and where their imaginations led them, unless they had more information than we have.

 

[rsr]

At least John Gill felt as I do, that "he only looked on him".

No, Gill said the text was explicit that something else happened, but we don't know what.

Forgive me, but I stand for what the Scripture says and not some Jewish Rabbis.

That's fine. The scriptures say very little, and perhaps it is best left at a, well, bare reading.

I found several statements on the subject and they all seem to reject the sexual part.

You can find all manner of things. The point is that a belief that something else happened - usually centering around the interpretation of what uncovering nakedness means in its various uses in the Bible, whether literally or euphemestically - has been around for many, many years.

As to the OP, I think it is unwise to make such dogmatic statements about the text and tend to believe that the folks in question are more interested in making a point than in, well, uncovering what the texts mean.

 

[Brother Bob]

As to the OP, I think it is unwise to make such dogmatic statements about the text and tend to believe that the folks in question are more interested in making a point than in, well, uncovering what the texts mean.

That seems to be in line with Gill. At least he seemed to refuse to put a spin on it at all but as you say, best left as it is written.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

As to the OP, I felt there was an attack on the IFB church from it. and found it to be insulting. I know many IFB pastors who preach the Word of God unswervingly.

I found this statement by rsr to be humorous,

That's fine. The scriptures say very little, and perhaps it is best left at a, well, bare reading.

especially since we were talking about the uncovering of Noah's nakedness. Not sure if he meant it that way, but it did cause me to chuckle.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

It is not unknown. It is what the text seems to indicate.

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.

Actually, Leviticus talks about far more than the father's wife. It addresses virtually every family relationship.

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

How would it benefit a homosexual for homosexual activity to receive a curse?

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.

Leviticus was more than 1000 years after Noah, probably several thousand. I pointed to it only to how how the idea of looking on someone's nakedness was considered sexual.

In the end, we do not know or sure.

 

[Brother Bob]

n the end, we do not know or sure.

This I agree with. (we do not know of any sexuality).

Seems some read the text and get a sexual content.

I read the text and get, it was shameful to look upon your father's nakeness. No more, no less!

Actually, I know Lev speaks of more but didn't feel it necessary to quote the whole book to make a point.

I don’t think Ham would of told and brought death upon himself. Leviticus was more than 1000 years after Noah, probably several thousand. I pointed to it only to how how the idea of looking on someone's nakedness was considered sexual.

You reckon it just started giving punishment for that kind of activity 1000 years after Noah?

I doubt if you forgot about Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

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.

I agree 100%.

And the homosexuals would love to prove that Noah was involved in a homosexual act, but still found grace in the eyes of the Lord!

This is the first time I have ever heard sexual connotations attached to Ham seeing his father naked and I've been in the same IFB church for 35 years!

And here I thought it was just TV commercials that put a 'sexual spin' on everything...

 

[Chris L.]

I agree 100%.

And the homosexuals would love to prove that Noah was involved in a homosexual act, but still found grace in the eyes of the Lord!

This is the first time I have ever heard sexual connotations attached to Ham seeing his father naked and I've been in the same IFB church for 35 years!

And here I thought it was just TV commercials that put a 'sexual spin' on everything...

Here is a link to the website that had stated this just in case anyone thinks I made it up. Look at the first line under "Biblical Examples of Alcohol Use". http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/alcohol.htm

Sad to say, it does seem some IFBer's really believe this stuff about the Noah and Ham alcohol/homosexuality thing, and ironically this kind of teaching may just end up playing into the homosexual "Christians" hands to try and justify their sin.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, for those who missed the question, how does getting cursed for homosexuality help the homosexuals cause?

And remember, the statement that Noah found grace was prior to the flood, not after it. And was apparenlty inactive in this since he did not know what happened until he woke. So that argument hardly works against it.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Again, for those who missed the question, how does getting cursed for homosexuality help the homosexuals cause?

I didn't miss the question, Pastor Larry. I answered it.

If they can point to the Bible and say that Noah took part in a homosexual act and was not condemned, nor chastened, then it is all right with God.

Unless you are privy to what homosexuals think, you have no idea what they are trying to use to prove their lifestyle is all right. They will use anything, no matter how ridiculous, and things like this make them very happy!

And, yes, I am privy to that information because I have been witnessing to a number of them for over three years. They will NOT admit that God says it is wrong.

So, anything that remotely hints that God went along with it delights them.

 

[Helen]

Folks, Noah and Ham did not become involved homosexually. If so, then it would have been ridiculous to curse Ham's son instead of Ham!

There is a clue as to what happened, and that is in the word 'the' used in the most ancient manuscripts when describing the cloak that Shem and Japheth covered their father with. Ancient Jewish legends ascribe that cloak to be the one God made for Adam which Noah then brought down through the Deluge. This cloak, or a cloak like it, may well have been a sign of authority. A cloak, or mantle, indicating authority has been used ever since in many, many cultures.

Noah was a righteous man. He was the family authority. He did not MEAN to get drunk. However, if he thought it was grape juice he was drinking, he would have spat it out after the first sip. So he knew it was wine, and he had made it purposely.

But the Ark had landed on top of a mountain, and there is a strong possibility as well that the air pressure after the Flood was decreased from before the Flood. That means that the air pressure where Noah was was significantly less than before. Anyone who has ever had wine at an altitude vs. at sea level is going to be way ahead of me here -- at an altitude, where there is less air pressure, one gets high or drunk much, much faster than at sea level.

It appears that Noah had what would have been an innocuous cup of wine before the Flood and drank it relatively fast. Why? Because he did not feel the effects until it was too late, and wine acts relatively quickly. So at the first strong flushes, he may well have divested himself of his cloak, in the privacy of his tent, and then passed out. Whether he was naked as in 'bare naked' or simply without that cloak we honestly don't know.

But the brothers covered him up after Ham discovered him. And that is why Noah cursed Ham's son -- the authority was NOT going to pass down through Ham's family, but instead they would become servants and slaves -- the opposite of the authority Ham may well have tried to steal.

Granted this goes back to Jewish legend, but it does make more sense than some of what has been stated here in this thread!

And the little 'the' in front of 'cloak' or 'mantle' (depending on your translation) regarding Noah's cloak may well be the clue supporting that ancient story. The fact that Canaan was cursed also supports it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But there is nothing in this passage that hints that God "went along with it." In fact, from this passage, whatever Ham did is clearly the basis for the curse.

There is nothing in the passage that says that Noah took part in the act, whatever it was. In fact, he didn't know until he had awoken. This not uncommon for someone drunk, as I understand it.

If a homosexual uses this passage to justify something, then ask abotu the curse. If God was okay with it, then why is there a curse pronounced?

For someone to deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality, they have to be hard-hearted, or unable to read.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thank you, Helen. When common sense is spoken, it is like a breath of fresh air to me. :laugh:

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Excellent post, Helen!

For someone to deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality, they have to be hard-hearted, or unable to read.

Or lost..........

 

[Pastor Larry]

Helen's explanation is one. I am inclined against attaching to much weigh to "the." That's putting a lot of weight on a fairly common article.

As for why he was drunk, we again don't know that. The Bible does not attach it to the altitude, and that assumes that Noah remained at high altitude, something we don't know. Some have suggested prior to the flood, wine did not ferment as it does after, and therefore Noah did not expect to be drunk. All that is not entirely clear from the passage.

Perusing the commentaries give the various ideas: Homosexuality of some sort; incest; reveling in his father's embarrassing state; castration; etc.

We can't rule out some sort of homosexual act or fantasy on teh part of Ham. We can neither park too heavily on it, since we don't know. My caution would be against being dogmatic in any position.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Or lost..........

Isn't that the same as hard-hearted?

 

[Jon-Marc]

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.

The King James says in Gen. 9:24: "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him." What could his son have "done unto him" that would warrant a curse? HOW did he know what his son had done if he was too drunk and passed out to know what was happening in the first place? What could his son have "done unto him" other than a homosexual act?

There are those who say that the son had sex with his own mother. I have no idea where they get that. That would not be doing anything to Noah. If seeing one's father naked is a sin, then I sinned a lot as a child since I saw my father naked a lot in the home. It was never a big deal, and we didn't have sex.

 

[tinytim]

Helen has a good point...

This story about the cloak being handed down from Adam to Noah, and then on to Nimrod is found in the extrabiblical history book of Jasher.
Which is refered to a couple times in the Bible.

Now whether it is true or not, you would have to decide, but it does make sense to me.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Isn't that the same as hard-hearted?

It can be, but I've also met some professing 'Christians' who are hard-hearted. :tear: