excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Then in Genesis 9 Ham didn't handle the nakedness in the right way so Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan and his descendants to be slaves....
-
Features
Why YEC can seem plausible
- Thread starter excreationist
- Start date
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
You would think god would help with the heavy lifting, like elephants.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
DBT
Contributor
Some say that "nakedness in this instance is a euphemism for sexual relations....hence the harsh penalty.
James Brown
Veteran Member
Makes no sense. Noah intentionally sinned. His son accidentally sinned. His grandson gets the punishment. "Objection, your honor!"
And of course, this nonsensical passage has been the justification for countless lives ruined by slavery and all its negative side effects for millenia. Tell me again why I should be a Bible-believing Christian.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,904
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Necessarily. Physics dictates that it couldn't have stayed together by the natural operation of mechanics and physical law.
From your link:
This claim is not supported by the preceding 'brain dump' of irrelevant data about joinery, and is a classic case of 'anything is possible, when you don't understand how anything works'.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
Nonsensical is right, but there's not enough to the story to justify saying that Noah sinned or Ham sinned. What's there is a fragment. Noah drinks wine and falls asleep naked in his tent. How is that a sin? Ham walks in and sees what has happened. How is that a sin? He tells his brothers, who take a cloak and walk backwards into the tent to cover up Noah. The RSV says, "When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him..." and then the cursing of Canaan. What had his youngest son done to him, and as you point out, why is the grandson dragged into this? It's like Dubya attacking Iraq because 19 Saudis carried out 911.
DBT
Contributor
Quote:
''Uncovering nakedness (galah ‘ervat) is a euphemism for illicit sexual activity in Leviticus in particular, where Israelites are instructed not to “uncover the nakedness” of their relatives.''
''Uncovering nakedness elsewhere suggests sexual intercourse and or promiscuity (see Leviticus 18.6; Ezekiel 16.36-37), so some scholars have suggested that Ham became inappropriately sexual with his father. (Note that in Genesis 19, Lots daughters intentionally get their father drunk so that they can have sex with him.)''
''Uncovering nakedness (galah ‘ervat) is a euphemism for illicit sexual activity in Leviticus in particular, where Israelites are instructed not to “uncover the nakedness” of their relatives.''
''Uncovering nakedness elsewhere suggests sexual intercourse and or promiscuity (see Leviticus 18.6; Ezekiel 16.36-37), so some scholars have suggested that Ham became inappropriately sexual with his father. (Note that in Genesis 19, Lots daughters intentionally get their father drunk so that they can have sex with him.)''
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I have sailed a viking ship of Erikson's type. They are amazingly unstable. Half the crew act as balast and run side to side to compensate. The hull is thin and flexes. Which is terrifying when you're out at sea.
Its built for speed. Everything is stripped down to help it go fast.
Any minor fuck up with the rigging and you need to go back on land to fix it
I can't imagine the size of the balls of those guys
DBT
Contributor
Yes euphemisms that may be interpreted to mean what is not being openly described.
''Uncovering nakedness elsewhere suggests sexual intercourse and or promiscuity (see Leviticus 18.6; Ezekiel 16.36-37), so some scholars have suggested that Ham became inappropriately sexual with his father. (Note that in Genesis 19, Lots daughters intentionally get their father drunk so that they can have sex with him.)''
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
It seems that the uncovering happened when Ham wasn't around....
The problem seems to be with viewing Noah's nakedness...
"....they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked...."
Though verse 24 could support what you're saying:
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him
DBT
Contributor
It is ambiguous. Yet the nakedness reference is used in relation to sexual relations in other verses.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
One of the first things I noticed waty back when first on the forum is that atheists seem to know more about the bible than Christians.
James Brown
Veteran Member
There are several passages in the Bible that on the face of it don't make a lot of sense. This compels people to posit that there must be some deeper meaning, usually of a taboo nature. Noah's nakedness and Ham's sin, Balaam's talking donkey, David's "friendship" with Jonathan.
And yet evangelicals constantly tell me that we must accept scripture exactly as it's written. Explaining away non-credible passages (like suggesting that Methusaleh's advanced age in years is actually months) is dishonest.
Perhaps, but I don't see how we can do both. If Methusaleh truly lived almost a thousand years, then Noah stupidly cursed his grandson's descendants to slavery because his son accidentally saw Noah's bare bottom.
And yet evangelicals constantly tell me that we must accept scripture exactly as it's written. Explaining away non-credible passages (like suggesting that Methusaleh's advanced age in years is actually months) is dishonest.
Perhaps, but I don't see how we can do both. If Methusaleh truly lived almost a thousand years, then Noah stupidly cursed his grandson's descendants to slavery because his son accidentally saw Noah's bare bottom.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
I don't know of any YEC organisations or key figures claiming that Methusaleh's age was in months.... see post #390....
I think the genealogies are made up so then it is possible they intended to use literal years.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,261
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Fortunately in Australia I have yet to meet an evangelical who accepts that (in italics) .
DBT
Contributor
If the Bible is meant to be the inspired word of God, the Creator of the Universe, it shouldn't look like a collection of works written and compiled by ancient people based on their own understanding of the world.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
A counter-argument is that God wanted to communicate in a way that the people could understand - so that maybe the people at the time couldn't understand there being billions of years, or a spherical earth that orbits the Sun, or people using their head (rather than their heart, etc) to think....
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,904
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I bet Ken Ham knows a fair few though.