Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no it didn't.
shortly after the "flood" noah takes to the drink and falls into a drunken stupor at which point ham enters.
now we're not sure what transpires in that tent. the bible is kind of ambiguous on the topic. does he just see noah naked as the bible suggests? or did something more sinister happen... maybe ham raped noah? or perhaps he ha er all. evil began again with the supposed most righteous man that was worth saving.
no it didn't.
shortly after the "flood" noah takes to the drink and falls into a drunken stupor at which point ham enters.
Of course I am thoroughly acquainted with the happenings after the flood.
Your pessimistic outlook that further and deeper remedies for man should have not been necessary is only typical a skeptic insisting to see only divine failure.
The failure of Noah, the Tower of Babel, the calling of Abraham as head of a called race, and all the other ups and downs of subsequent history do not prove that Noah was not saved from that world.
If you want to read the Bible that way no one can stop you. If you work hard to see everything in the Bible in the bleakest possible skepticism, go ahead. You seem to always be hunting for accusations against the God of the Bible.
In this case the Scriptures own commentary on itself is adaquate:
"God .. did not spare the ancient world but guarded Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly." (2 Pet. 2:4)
Interestingly, some scholars understand that the day the ark landed on dry land was the very day in the year that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
This "coincidence" signals to some of us the providence of God and that the flood and ark are definitely connected to the antitype of the death and resurection of Christ for man's salvation.
now we're not sure what transpires in that tent. the bible is kind of ambiguous on the topic. does he just see noah naked as the bible suggests? or did something more sinister happen... maybe ham raped noah? or perhaps he had sex with his mother. whatever the case, it's left up to speculation.
"And Noah awoke from his wine and learned what his youngest son had done to him." (Genesis 9:24) That is all the details we are given, aside from Ham discovering and talking about his father's situation.
Some translations read
younger son. Some read
youngEST son. The
youngest probably refers to the youngest male descendent mentioned the account. That would be the grandson Canaan as the guilty party.
However, some translate
younger son which I suppose could point to Ham. So I have never been entirely decided on which was the one, or both, who had done something to Noah.
The main point here is that no failure of Noah, Ham, Canaan or anyone else means as YOU say that Noah was not SAVED from the wicked world that was drowned in the flood.
what is known according to the bible narrative is that when noah wakes up, he "knows what ham did to him" (what did he do?). so what does noah do, does he punish ham? nope. he curses all of ham's descendants. nice guy.
What is important to me in the story is not the specifics of what was done. I am not hunting for a tabloid scandel here. Though some of the text is not too clear to me, I lean towards a contrast being established between the attitude of Ham verses the attitude of Shem and Japheth.
What happened may be nothing more than what we are told.
The story I think is important to my spiritual walk is about the FAILURE of one in authority. And how this failure became a
test and an exposure to those under authority. Two of the parties walked in backwards and COVERED the person in authority. And one seems either to have neglected to or possibly gossiped scandelously about the matter.
The rebellion in man causes him to gloat at the failure of deputy authority. Whenever you hear people share juicy secrets about the boss in the office, whenever you hear people gloat and express glee at the falling down of a leader you may be reminded of this incident.
The heart of the God seeker should be to cover the failures of one in authority. When your parents, your boss, your teacher, your mayor or governor or professor or president or ANYONE in some position of authority over you FAILS, it the proper attitude is not to rejoice or gloat or scandelize. The godly person will seek to cover the failure of leadership.
It is the position that is respected. The mistakes and failure of one in authority often is a test to the God seeking person. The reaction in the heart is on test. In this incident the two brothers who walked in backwards so as not to see the nakedness of Noah and sought to cover up his shame, were in the proper spirit.
With the way people today talk about their leaders, even when they have legitimate realizations of thier fallings is an exposure to the insubordination and rebellion hiding out in their hearts.
so right after supposedly ridding the world of 'evil' which was caused by his own sons coming to earth and raping human women, god didn't manage to cure evil after all. evil began again with the supposed most righteous man that was worth saving.
I didn't say the word was ridded of evil. I said Noah was saved from that evil age and that judged generation. I have never thought that
Genesis 9 was a more appropriate conclusion to the Bible than Revelation 21 and 22.
In the progressive revelation of the Bible the end of the flood of Noah is not meant to be the consumation of God's purpose.
Did God cause evil?
28 Jan '12 12:328 edits
Back to Top