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

[Pastor Larry]

Scarlet,

You recognize that everything just said has as much biblical/textual support as does some kind of homosexuality, right? The Bible is not explicit, and that is why it is wise for us not to be dogmatic.

 

[dwmoeller1]

IF there was a homosexual act done, it was done BY Ham TO his father, and NOT willingly by Noah. That would explain what it means in the King James where it says about Noah realizing what Ham had "done unto him". Why would simply seeing one's father nude be a sin? Many children see their father nude (I did). What's the big deal? Ham had to have DONE something to deserve being cursed. It has nothing to do with Noah willingly having a homosexual relationship with his son. Of course, it could have been no more than Ham mocking and making fun of his father in his drunken state. Still, why would that elicit such a curse?

That seeing their father naked *was* a big deal is beyond doubt. Notice how the passage explicitly records the manner in which they covered their father and the fact that they didn't see their father naked. So, contextually, it is clear that seeing their father naked was one of the main issues. If there were any other issues involved (ie. homosexuality or other) they are not even implicitly mentioned in the context - nor elsewhere in Scripture for that matter.

So, your question of "What is the big deal?" cannot be used to imply that it wasn't a big deal - the passage is too clear on that matter. Thus, the answer Scarlett O. provides, while speculative to some extent, is a highly reasonable one. Much more reasonable, in light of the context, than any homosexual speculation. Insisting on turning this verse into a homosexual reference merely exposes one's personal and cultural prejudices and presuppositions.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Nakedness has always been a 'big deal' to God. We have to look no further than Genesis to see that.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

And again in Exodus:

Exd 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

God did not want nakedness looked upon.

Noah knew that and knew that Ham had committed a sin by doing so, thus the curse.

 

[Salamander]

Nakedness has always been a 'big deal' to God. We have to look no further than Genesis to see that.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

And again in Exodus:

Exd 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

God did not want nakedness looked upon.

Noah knew that and knew that Ham had committed a sin by doing so, thus the curse.

The key to the passage is what looking upon another's nakedness causes/ lust.

Since the Lord pondereth the hearts and His Word pierces into joints and the marrow to reveal the thoughts and intents of the heart, it would be very effectively deduced that at least Ham's thoughts were of the type to commit sodomy in his heart.

Seeing is not touching. The KJB translators would have used and English interpretation to give the reader a correct understanding and would not have used "saw" and would have used a word more likened to "touched" if it were the act that caused the curse upon Ham's son..

Of course this is too simple for those who cannot see the forest because of all the trees.:laugh:

 

[Brother Bob]

Sorry Sal.
That is just another way of getting your thought or mine into the subject. I think we need to stick with the word.

The key to the passage is what looking upon another's nakedness causes/ lust.

Since the Lord pondereth the hearts and His Word pierces into joints and the marrow to reveal the thoughts and intents of the heart, it would be very effectively deduced that at least Ham's thoughts were of the type to commit sodomy in his heart.

Seeing is not touching. The KJB translators would have used and English interpretation to give the reader a correct understanding and would not have used "saw" and would have used a word more likened to "touched" if it were the act that caused the curse upon Ham's son..

Of course this is too simple for those who cannot see the forest because of all the trees.:laugh:

I was in the Army and bathed with men all the time. Not once did their nakeness cause me to lust. That is absurb, unless you are a Homo.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The KJB translators would have used and English interpretation to give the reader a correct understanding and would not have used "saw" and would have used a word more likened to "touched" if it were the act that caused the curse upon Ham's son..

So you are saying that the KJV translators were not committed to the actual words, but rather translated them according to their "English interpretation"?

The KJV translators were not infallible in their word choices in any case. The authority is the Hebrew text.

And in light of this, what do you think passages like Lev 20:17 are prohibiting? Is it okay to "touch" if it is in the dark and you don't actually see? Of course not. The phrase "looking on nakedness" can have the connotation of sexual activity,, and that is exactly what is being addressed in passages like Lev 20:17. That cannot be completely ruled out here.

 

[Brother Bob]

You do err;
What does Lev. have to do with Gen.
One is the nakeness of the Father himself.
The other is thenakeness of his wife, children, etc.
KJV, speaks plainly concerning the subject.
It even goes so far as to tell us, the brothers backed in to cover their father so they too did not "see his nakeness". Where do you ever get a sexual act from that.

You yourself have admitted, that in reality, "you don't really know", but insist for the sake of you not losing the argument, continue to say it has a sexual nature, after admitting you "don't really know".

I think I know, that is the difference Pastor.

 

[John I Morris]

I am with you chicken woman.... the answer is; yes, it did. My read on the Scripture and I am not going to change. :wavey:

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The Word of God nowhere says Noah committed a homosexual act, nor does it say that Ham committed such. It is wrong to read into the Word that which it does not say.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Seems like some are obsessed with this homosexual thing.

I do not believe Noah did anything sexually wrong. The Bible does not say that he did and that should settle it.

Stop trying to put word's in God's mouth and second-guessing Him!