Noah's Bad Hair Day.
If you have never been drunk before, the first time can be a bit scarifying. The bible would have us believe that Noah's bout with the bottle, as recorded in Genesis 9;20, 21, was his first experience with over-drinking. " Now Noah started off as a farmer and proceeded to plant a vineyard. And he began drinking of the wine and became intoxicated.."
I always found this a bit hard to swallow. Yes, I am willing to accept that man's discovery of the power of alcohol, may have been accidental. (i.e. storing grape juice for too long, leading to fermentation. Etc.). But to swallow, that man had been on the earth for 1656 years (to accept WTS calculations), that life on earth had degenerated to the point of one long mardi gras party, and yet HAD NEVER discovered how alcoholic beverages can help you party, is just too hard for me to accept. And the explanation offered by some brothers that grape juice did not ferment before the flood, is simply unbelievable.
So the genesis record of Noah getting pissed, opens up more questions for me, than answers.
But, if that matter is difficult, how about rest of the experience.
"and so he uncovered himself in the midst of his tent. "
(and why was he still living in a tent? Here's a man who built a ship. Who had taken up farming. He needed a fixed location. A barn too! So, if he had a barn, why would he still have a "tent." ?)
So, getting drunk was only the start of Noah's bad day.." Later Ham the father of Canaan saw his father's nakedness and went telling it to his brothers "
As many will be aware the WTS suggests (on the basis of other records) that this means that Noah was anally raped that day.
If you still have the Aid book and the Insight book, you can check it out.
Aid Book, Page 1230, under the sub-heading - Noah's Intoxication and also Page 284, under Canaan, second paragraph.
In the Insight book, for some reason the WTS removed the reference under Noah , but retained it under Canaan on page 399. Can't figure why they did that!
In both the external references, and in the WTS explanations, the usual view is that it was not Ham that did the dastardly deed, but Canaan his son. I find this hard to swallow also. Verse 22, specifically says "Ham --- saw his father's nakedness." . I guess the problem is that other texts state that Ham was a faithful flood survivor, so to attribute a desire to ***k anuses is a bit difficult to reconcile for the fundie types.
Why Canaan got cursed is left obscure. Apparently the holy spirit was having a bad day also, and failed to inspire the writer to make the matter clear.
And there are other questions in my mind.. Whether the deed was committed by Ham or Canaan, the question arises what was so special about Noahs' rear? According to verses 28, 29, Noah was over 600 years of age at this time Was the view of his rear, so enticing to either Canaan or Ham, that they could not resist the temptation ? That Noahs' rear end filled one of them with uncontrollable lust? Hhhmmmm!
And, if such feelings are NOT natural, as most fundies will maintain, where did the desire and knowledge required for this act (well! They would need lubricant! a little technical knowledge is a requirement for this sort of sex.) come from? Ham could have had knowledge of the practise from before the flood. But Canaan was born after the flood. Was it a matter for open discussion???
I doubt that it was the first time, that someone, (male or female) got drunk and was raped. And, certainly it was not the last time.
Well, I cannot draw conclusions (answers to my spiritual questions)-- it's one of those biblical conundrums, that as my former brothers used to say, we will just have to wait on Jehovah to give us the answer to understand it. But, whatever way you want to look at it, Noah's bad hair day was beauty wasn't it?
Edited by - singsongboi on 3 July 2002 6:14:44