|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Noah with an all-star cast.
I'm an atheist, so the story is fantasy/mythology to me.
Nonetheless, this trailer is awesome.
You know, if we take Noah as real...I've pondered something.
It should be accepted that there is NO WAY on earth or space that he could fit two of each animal, seven of some, and then with them and enough food to keep them all fed...fit them onto that boat.
SOOOOO....how could it have ever been done...IF we simply accept that it actually happened and is fact (not saying you have to...just that in this exercise...pretend that it's factual).
Ever seen Titan AE. I've been thinking, maybe they were actually not a primitive civilization, but FAR more advance then anything we've even dreamed of. In that, when he actually got the animals, it was simply the DNA so they could clone them or whatever. Hence, depending on the method, he/she may have needed a male and female version (xx/xy) in order to propagate the species...it would take FAR less room (still going to be excessively tight fit in that boat, even with samples of that small a size) and would only have to worry about food for himself, his family, and perhaps animals they brought for food themselves.
Just a thought on how it may be possible as a thought exercise.
Have no idea how the movie does it, but it looks like they take the old tradition that it's a more primitive society and somehow he fits everything onto the boat as living, breathing creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One occasionally-mooted suggestion is that Noah two representatives of every animal type on the ark, rather than every single species and subspecies. However, I believe it's been pointed out that this merely reduces the number of animals on the ark from millions to a still-impractical several thousand.
Major problem: where are the traces of said civilization? We'd be finding remnants of their tech all over the place if this were the case. Also, why did they die off and devolve to bronze age tech with no stories about a lost golden age with fancy tech?I've been thinking, maybe they were actually not a primitive civilization, but FAR more advance then anything we've even dreamed of. In that, when he actually got the animals, it was simply the DNA so they could clone them or whatever. Hence, depending on the method, he/she may have needed a male and female version (xx/xy) in order to propagate the species...it would take FAR less room (still going to be excessively tight fit in that boat, even with samples of that small a size) and would only have to worry about food for himself, his family, and perhaps animals they brought for food themselves.
.
What happened to the tech? I have no idea, but we are still finding many things that we didn't know or have any idea about today.
We do have some theorize about the pyramids and some other objects however in regards to their construction, with some thinking space aliens or an advanced society.
As for the reason it went away...imagine that one of us had to build something like that ark. IF we had enough money, I think we could build something similar, even today. Maybe not with cloning and such, but we probably could get DNA samples of many of the animals that we have around today and categorize them in an "Ark" as to say.
Probably have contractors and such. They would probably mock us insanely, afterall, why would we be building such a thing...but I think it would be possible.
HOWEVER...after everyone is dead, how many of us could build a power plant, a water purification system, new computers and new automobiles and such?
We are a very specialized society in what we can do, which is really good for society in our collaborative efforts, but if only a few of us were left as a family...we probably would fall back to the bronze age, or worse, the stone age, rather quickly afterwards.
There IS some hypothesis by some religion guys (and I'm not saying it's fact...this is just a hypothetical exercise on how it could have been done with any sort of plausibility) that there were no oceans before the flood. The water came by a misting or mists or something like that. So, another plausibility for the disappearance of tech is that most of that civilization that was there is now underneath the ocean.
I don't want to sound like a Däniken groupie, but I do want to point out there are numerous findings of ruined structures in the oceans. A city of the coast of India that is dated at 10,000 bc, strange flat pyramid type structures in the water south of Japan..and of course, every year there seems to be a new story about crystal pryamids in the Atlantic.
I am very sceptical of some stories I read, but there are cities off the Indian coast..researchers have taken items from them.
Combine that with stories from almost every pre-bronze society about a deluge and you have to believe something big happened, likely related to the polor ice caps melting at the end of the last ice age.
But the ark itself..humm..you have to take every story in the bible with some dose of caution...
afterall, numerous parts of the bible refer to giants, and a church rhyme I got feed when I was in grade school refered to Ezekiel seeing a wheel in the sky..flying saucer?
So if I believe in the ark, then I believe there were giants and also flying wheels..
And if I go there, then I start sounding like Däniken
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, so Aliens.
No, guys, inter-dimensional beings. That's totally different.
It's unlikely that there was an advanced antediluvian civilization, but anything's possible, maybe all their tech was organic leaving no traces, or based on some unknown power source where everything blew up to unrecognizable pieces.
World Bank whistleblower exposes "Second Species" entrenched in world global elite, Vatican
In other news, I was interested in seeing Noah, too.
Okay. Say there WAS a hypertech civilization back then. Cool. Where's the stuff? Why is the best description we have of it a few passages in a hokey religious book? The old texts were copied exactly. If they had writted DNA archives, the text would still say DNA archives, and have been considered weird for a very long time by now. With that kind of tech, why didn't they leave anything to show anyone what happened? If they wanted to tell the story to some people, which is not a given, why did they not make it unambiguous? Did everything else rain away? The fact that Utanipashtam and similar cycles of myth have recurred through historical records proves nothing except that early jews liked the myths of other civilizations and took them as theirs.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Duh, all the ancient technology was so far advanced it was organic and 100% biodegradable because a truly advanced civilization would know to use natural renewable resources that would break down quickly to replenish the environment. Traces of their culture are all around us, hidden in plain sight. Rocks and trees are just old spaceship parts.
*Velcro Zipper am being facetious*
As far as the movie goes, it was pretty good. The Watchers' (fallen angels) valiant stand against the people of Cain was awesome.
Aaaaaah, of course. :-)
The old texts were copied exactly. If they had writted DNA archives, the text would still say DNA archives, and have been considered weird for a very long time by now.
Actually, on a point related to this, the idea that a weird word would just exist in a void with no context and no concept related to it written in an ancient book that would suddenly make sense in English (a short-hand utilizing a form of alphabet that wasn't invented yet)... isn't true. Or at least it's exceedingly unlikely.
While I don't believe (or give any credence whatsoever) in the ancient super-technology theories (and that was a very... uh... bizarre, to say the least... link, Jean-Paul), the fact that ancient civilizations may have known things that subsequent civilizations did not (but recorded anyway) is neither hard to fathom, nor hard to understand.
If there was a word that was invented whole-cloth to describe, say, DNA, it's very unlikely that it would at all resemble the word DNA, not the least of which because the fundamental properties of the word "Deoxyribonucleic acid" didn't exist. What it described existed, certainly, but the language itself did not, and would not for quite some time. Added to that, even if the language existed, the word would not - it is a new word created by non-native speakers of a now-dead language. And then DNA is a memetic mutation - the tendency of one language (English) to abbreviate which, as far as I know, didn't exist in the original language.
Thus, instead, presuming there was any sort of "more advanced" civilization (regardless of what that means), they would have called it their word, and the closest approximation would have been handed down to the other nearby civilizations.
In other words, if a settled metal-using civilization who had, say, copper, ran into a migratory stone-and-bone-using civilization, the stone-and-bone-using civilization would call the copper "stone bones" or something - they wouldn't have a word for copper. Or, if they were given the word "copper" from the other language, they would call it copper, migrate, and within a generation, "copper" would be used for anything that had even the most remote connection to the actual metal copper - metal, glass, and other wonders all exhibit "similar enough" possible properties to this "copper" that they'd all likely be categorized under the same general heading.
Heck, I'll give you a modern example: "dinosaurs". Heh. That's hilarious. I mean, it's also generally used incorrectly, but, you know, that's the point: people apply words they're given to things that, from a technical standpoint, they "shouldn't", so long as, in their mind, it's got some vague similarities.
Another (possible*) example is the story of Jonah. It was originally written that he was eaten by a fish. Many modern scholars generally accept that the story says he was eaten by a whale... even though "whale" is never mentioned anywhere in the texts of the entire Old Testament. Why is that? For one, because the word "whale" didn't exist; for two, being accidentally swallowed by such a creature would be not only more probable** in the area that he was in, but also (theoretically**) more survivable. Thus the broad acceptance of the literal accuracy of the Scriptures so far as the language extant is able to permit while altering the actual word within to "make more sense" to us**.
*
**
Thus, if we were to presume that something like "DNA" were written in an ancient language, and, for whatever reason, handed down to other "lower" civilizations, it would quickly become a word that applied to all sorts of things that it didn't belong to, so long as those currently using it had no direct access to the information/education that it originated within and, from their perspective, held similar properties.
Let's do this in a speculative way, taking a word, such as, say, the word "spirit" - perhaps its root originally meant something akin to "molecular energy", but, because "molecular energy" is in everything, and a primitive society wouldn't understand this, it was explained as similar to the idea of "that which is alive". Societies would then naturally adopt this concept of Animus, that "spirit" is within everything. Other societies would come along and point out, rightfully so, that a rock doesn't move, breath, or have any form of life; thus it doesn't have a "spirit"! Through natural memetic mutation, the idea could be later confined to just those living things with minds. And so on. Eventually, "spirit" means nothing like what it meant originally in our (very wild) speculative fictional hypothesis.
What is the point of all this? Am I arguing for ancient super-tech that, being naturally biodegradable, would cease to exist on its own?
No, of course not. That would be silly. After all,
While "absences of evidence is not evidence of absence", this is no license to believe in stuff without evidence.
Instead, my point is simply this: don't give a baseless hypothesis any sort of credibility by using a bad theory yourself to disprove them.
This is the origination of the "Strawman" concept that has become so popular an internet political term. By utilizing a "disproof" that can be knocked down (complete with modern examples), the opposing view suddenly gains credibility.
Also, I'm pompous, long-winded, and pedantic. Sorry.
Oh, and,
this is no license to believe in stuff without evidence.
... while this is entirely true, the license to believe in stuff without evidence is granted - it is by an individual's personal free will.
Also, there's a very large gradient of what people find acceptable "evidence" to base belief off of.
Also, also, there's nothing wrong with disliking how someone else comes up with a conclusion (which is important to distance how you feel about that person in specific). And it's a good thing to educate them about it! But it's also a good thing to accept their decision on where to place their belief after you have presented your side of the evidence and education! Because, you know, free will***.
:D
*** Have I mentioned that free will can entirely be related to insanity, depending on how far it's taken? Because it can! Woo!****
**** Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand wow that's off-topic. If we want to have a general conversation about that - in another thread - I'll be happy to go with it... in another thread. 'Cause dudes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, if we take Noah as real...I've pondered something.
It should be accepted that there is NO WAY on earth or space that he could fit two of each animal, seven of some, and then with them and enough food to keep them all fed...fit them onto that boat.
SOOOOO....how could it have ever been done...IF we simply accept that it actually happened and is fact (not saying you have to...just that in this exercise...pretend that it's factual).
If we're to take the story as fact then I'd probably chalk things up to the presence of an omnipotent creator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If animals were reduced to that small a gene pool they'd all die out from massive inbreeding...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's unlikely that there was an advanced antediluvian civilization, but anything's possible, maybe all their tech was organic leaving no traces, or based on some unknown power source where everything blew up to unrecognizable pieces.
Dyson sphere is proto indoeuropean. As much as we like to say he was this guy who came up with the idea fifty years ago...dhe-Sen means 'to vanish'-'apart' as in 'to conceal'. So the Dyson sphere is a display of the tech level of the ancients.
|
|
If animals were reduced to that small a gene pool they'd all die out from massive inbreeding...
I also wonder the same thing about the humans. Doesn't the story imply that all the people are wiped out by the flood, other than Noah, his wife and kids? How do they repopulate the planet? And where do other races like Asian, African and Indian come from?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would depend on when it happened. Africans have the most amazing genetic diversity, while everyone else is pretty streamlined. Thus, if it did happen in any way, shape or form, it must have happened some time before we were modern humans, and at the very least, Noah must have been an early African, not a Middle East human.
Of course it is aliens, a lot of peple believe that and it is supported by respected ufologist and disbelievers can not prove otherwise...
Best argument in paizo forum ever
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're to take the story as fact then I'd probably chalk things up to the presence of an omnipotent creator.You know, if we take Noah as real...I've pondered something.
It should be accepted that there is NO WAY on earth or space that he could fit two of each animal, seven of some, and then with them and enough food to keep them all fed...fit them onto that boat.
SOOOOO....how could it have ever been done...IF we simply accept that it actually happened and is fact (not saying you have to...just that in this exercise...pretend that it's factual).
My thoughts too. We play RPGs and make blanket statements like "because of Magic" to explain stuff and yet a religious story with an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God has to have complete and total basis in scientific facts or else it is proof that the Bible and religion is bogus.
Everyone gets it. People with an agenda to discredit religions need facts that exist without the existence of a God. People who believe in God don't want facts because they already believe that "because God" is what happened.How about instead of belittling anyone's belief, whether pro or anti, we all just respect that people have varying opinions and move on.
How was the movie, were the effects good, was the story cool, how was the acting....that's the questions.
I don't see people bashing the scifi crowd with "there is no way that an Iron Man suit could ever work" or "there is no way that a small lizard could ever expand in size to be bigger than a 40 story building".
I guess it's just more fun to bash certain people....
This would depend on when it happened. Africans have the most amazing genetic diversity, while everyone else is pretty streamlined. Thus, if it did happen in any way, shape or form, it must have happened some time before we were modern humans, and at the very least, Noah must have been an early African, not a Middle East human.
This is actually an excellent point.
It is, in fact, very likely that Noah (presuming you accept the existance of a historical figure we otherwise recognize now in religious belief and/or mythology, depending on your take, as "real" to some degree or another) was not anything like what we'd generally accept most modern middle eastern folk to appear as - or, if he did, it would be more by "happenstance" (though see the Omnipotent God argument here) than anything else.
Similarly, Adam (and, of course Eve). Whatever we visualize of them is hopelessly incorrect - it really doesn't matter what we do, because we don't see them.
How about instead of belittling anyone's belief, whether pro or anti, we all just respect that people have varying opinions and move on.
Exactly. :)
How was the movie, were the effects good, was the story cool, how was the acting....that's the questions.
Agreed. I know I'm curious!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised at the turn this thread made. Nonetheless, I haven't read any posts that were trollish.
We say things like 'because of magic' when playing an RPG, well, because it's fantasy. I think it's safe to say that the great majority of the Paizonians here are stable, well-adjusted people; none of us are likely to believe we're Pardu.
Taking the Noah myth as fact--fact as presented-- is simply indefensible, unless, that is, you willfully choose to disregard actual facts like some of those presented by commenters in several of the above posts.
That said, I have every intention and desire to see this movie because I appreciate several of the actors and the trailer looks absolutely phenomenal.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts too. We play RPGs and make blanket statements like "because of Magic" to explain stuff and yet a religious story with an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God has to have complete and total basis in scientific facts or else it is proof that the Bible and religion is bogus.
Everyone gets it. People with an agenda to discredit religions need facts that exist without the existence of a God. People who believe in God don't want facts because they already believe that "because God" is what happened.
How about instead of belittling anyone's belief, whether pro or anti, we all just respect that people have varying opinions and move on.
How was the movie, were the effects good, was the story cool, how was the acting....that's the questions.
I don't see people bashing the scifi crowd with "there is no way that an Iron Man suit could ever work" or "there is no way that a small lizard could ever expand in size to be bigger than a 40 story building".
I guess it's just more fun to bash certain people....
The difference is, we all pretty much agree that the fantasy world of Pathfinder is make believe. Ditto for Iron Man and Godzilla. I'm fine with saying "magic did it" in these cases because at no point is anyone saying magic really honestly did it.
If a noteworthy politician came out with a comment saying he thought the story of Tony Stark as portrayed in the film Iron Man was literally true and actually happened, would you let it slide and respect his beliefs?
Went and saw Noah this weekend.
I really liked the movie, and this is coming from an atheist who doesn't buy the flood story at all. The Watchers are awesome, and I like the environmental message of the movie. It was actually also a pretty well made mythology-based movie, something that studios have greatly struggled with. Also this movie was as much a postapocalyptic movie as it is anything else...the encampment of the children of Cain could have been a cut scene from "The Road" just to get an idea of how far people have fallen.
Still can't believe this movie was made though. A movie based on a biblical story, which then precedes to probably annoy an obvious core audience by making Noah a much more morally complex person than some of them might prefer, as well as laying the major blame for the flood on God being annoyed at environmental destruction. Yeah...
Still can't believe this movie was made though. A movie based on a biblical story, which then precedes to probably annoy an obvious core audience by making Noah a much more morally complex person than some of them might prefer, as well as laying the major blame for the flood on God being annoyed at environmental destruction. Yeah...
That's exactly why this movie got made; the business model of this movie was to generate enormous controversy: take a familiar story that's already polarizing, twist and distort it until everything about it is on its head, set the hordes on each other to argue about it, all while the executives wag their fingers and tell everyone, "Don't judge it until you've seen it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't get too bent out of shape.
"300" was historically utter bollox,
"47 Ronin," though I haven't seen it (waiting for it to go from $15 to $5 on demand) doesn't seem to really tell the story of the 47 Ronin exactly (although the Chushingura stories were mostly fictive).
the list goes on.
I guess, though, the lesson is to learn some sympathy for my Iranian friends that don't know where to begin to explain just how f%~*ed up "300" is. I get it. I think I'd personally rather be conquered by Xerxes than by the freedom fighter King Leonidas.
Maybe Aranofsky could turn "Grapes of Wrath" into a post apocalyptic action thriller with mutant bikers next. With Mel Gibson as Jim Casy, and Steven Seagal as Tom Joad. Then, we could truly lament "is nothing sacred?" Because I'm sure that something still is.
After that, how about Aranofsky does the life of Mohammed with Harvey Keitel in the starring role. I dare you! I double dare you!!!
Well... now's your chance!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Went and saw Noah this weekend.
I really liked the movie, and this is coming from an atheist who doesn't buy the flood story at all. The Watchers are awesome, and I like the environmental message of the movie. It was actually also a pretty well made mythology-based movie, something that studios have greatly struggled with. Also this movie was as much a postapocalyptic movie as it is anything else...the encampment of the children of Cain could have been a cut scene from "The Road" just to get an idea of how far people have fallen.
Still can't believe this movie was made though. A movie based on a biblical story, which then precedes to probably annoy an obvious core audience by making Noah a much more morally complex person than some of them might prefer, as well as laying the major blame for the flood on God being annoyed at environmental destruction. Yeah...
Pretty much this. But one thing reading various comments I've seen elsewhere. The various reactions to this movie tell you a lot about the people who watch it. I'm fine with the idea of God being kinda scary and also not approving of our capitalist/consumerist way of life, and the movie parallels our own society. I think enviromental degradation pretty much is a sign of our own greed/selfishness/self involvement.
The people who seem to be most offended by this movie are not the ones who object to some non biblical parts of the movie but people who object to the subtext that their buddy Jesus doesn't approve of their down home American way of life and people like them might be 'the wicked' rather than how they see themselves, the saved/elect (I know that's Calvanist but it seems to fit) who God of course approves of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the other things that the Fundies have issue with, Noah getting drunk and parading around naked post-Flood simply prove that they themselves haven't read the Bible they are stridently defending, because he did do so and he curses Ham for calling him out on it. Genesis, Chapter 9, verse 21-something.
That's not quite correct. First, Noah wasn't parading around. He was specifically naked in his tent. Second, he didn't curse Ham for calling him out on it. He cursed Ham for finding him naked, then running to tell his brothers. In contrast, his brothers walked backward into the tent and covered Noah, so they wouldn't see him naked. They showed some respect rather than going, "Hey, guys, come see Pops naked!"
^Seb is correct.
There were considerable liberties taken with the story, because there really ISN'T much to Noah's story. Sodom and Gomorrah according to Biblical history weren't built until AFTER Noah's death. The central figure in Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't Noah, but Lot, Abraham's relation if I remember correctly.
This is fairly accurate. In Noah's case, there wasn't much to the story before the flood other than, "All of humanity sucks except Noah. Because he's not absolutely horrid, unlike everyone else, God decided to allow him and his family to live when he wipes out the rest of the world."
The story of Noah itself is here (chapters 5-9), though chapter five is mostly just "Adam's lineage to Noah" and can be safely ignored by those uninterested in reading without losing too much. Chapter 10 deals with descendants of Noah's sons, and thus wasn't written here.
Noah be old.
Sons of God (often thought be either angelic creatures or the descnedents of Shem, Adam's third son, depending on who you ask) married whoever (or whatever) they felt like. God gets ticked off with humanity (possibly related to the above, possibly not). It seems that this gave rise to the Nephilim (often thought to be giants), but it's possible that this is all slightly unrelated, though it seems to be part of the same thing.
After this, God saw that there was lots of evil everywhere, and (emotionally) regretted making humanity. They were that bad. But Noah was actually pretty cool, and was the only guy not a complete reprobate. Everyone else was super-violent and depraved.
God warned that he was going to destroy everything, but instructed Noah how to build and ark (which he does) and to take his wife, sons, and sons' wives onto it (to rebuild humanity later), and how to load it; once it's all loaded up, God closes the door. 40 days and nights of awful flooding kill everything, and after about 150 days on water, the ark finally lands (the waters had been steadily receding for days, due to wind and sinking into the earth, and other things). After 40 days of sitting there, Noah let a dove out - it came back. After seven more days, he let another out, and it came back with a branch. After seven more days, he sent out another dove, but it didn't come back.
After that, he eventually removed the covering of the ark, then later got the go-ahead to leave. Everyone happily left. Noah makes a sacrifice. God notes that he won't kill everything like that again, makes a promise not to destroy the whole world by flooding it again, and proves it with a rainbow. People are allowed to eat meat, killing people is noted as being a really bad thing - like, you murder a human, you are ended. No question. (This is likely a response to the tremendous violence noted earlier.)
Noah grew a vineyard. He made wine, got drunk, and (inside his own tent) got naked (with the implication that he's doing dumb, drunken things). Ham told his brothers who took pains to cover their father without embarrassing him. Due to what his sons had done, he cursed Ham, and blessed Shem and Japeth. Then he lived a while and died.
Noah's sons basically repopulated the world.
^Seb is correct.
There were considerable liberties taken with the story, because there really ISN'T much to Noah's story. Sodom and Gomorrah according to Biblical history weren't built until AFTER Noah's death. The central figure in Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't Noah, but Lot, Abraham's relation if I remember correctly.This is fairly accurate. In Noah's case, there wasn't much to the story before the flood other than, "All of humanity sucks except Noah. Because he's not absolutely horrid, unlike everyone else, God decided to allow him and his family to live when he wipes out the rest of the world."
The story of Noah itself is here (chapters 5-9), though chapter five is mostly just "Adam's lineage to Noah" and can be safely ignored by those uninterested in reading without losing too much.
I've always found the lineage to be the most fascinating aspect of the whole story, just for the ages given. The matter of fact way they present the idea that all these people had lived 900+ years.
Not all people lived 900+ years - most did so, but a few stand-out as less; Methusela is notable for being the longest recorded at almost 1,000 (969). After the flood, though, the lifespans shortened dramatically and noticeably.
This is one of those funny bits of the Bible that never made sense to me.
You can interpret that text as "Hey, guys, come see Pops naked!", but that's not in the text. My first impression of the text was more like "Ham looks in the tent, see Noah, warns his brothers who are right outside: 'Dad's passed out naked'", which lets them behave more appropriately. And that's no less in the text.It gets interpreted the first way because Ham has to have done something horribly wrong to get cursed like that. Otherwise it wouldn't have been fair or just.
It's not the only place in the Bible where you have to read into the text to justify the good guys actions.Though actually I suspect this one originally comes from some kind of taboo against seeing the father naked. It doesn't matter why. Even if it was accidental and you did it as respectfully as possible, you still broke the taboo. You're screwed.
Eh... it's possible. The Bible often makes absolutely no claims about the morality of those involved. I, too, have oft wondered about the nature of many of the elder folks written about, and how we've come to the generally accepted conclusions of their morality.
One major difference is that Noah - at least before the flood - is noted as being a righteous man (i.e. not prone to violence, with the strong implication of cruelty). In many other instances, that's not the case, though. It's just, "Hey, they do this thing." and you go, "... uh, wow, that seems terrible." and the Bible makes no comment on it whatsoever other than, "This happened."
To me, in most such cases, I generally take it as, "No one is perfect - even the heroes are flawed, imperfect people who sin, make mistakes, and do bad things. All have fallen." and it's generally self-evident that this is so.
Occasionally, the Scripture will come in and explain, "No, this was totally justified." or, "No, this was totally whack." and explain why. But especially when the people of God come into conflict, I've noticed a tendency to just explain things as they happen with no justification. Very fascinating, and removing my own desires for people "like me" (i.e. going outside of my own cultural mindset) can lead to a greater understanding of some of the things written later, as well.
In any event, it's true that the actual text doesn't declare one way or the other. At the moment, I can't recall if it's ever revisited by later writers with the explanation given by Seb, or if that's just a broadly accepted interpretation. But maybe someone who does remember will speak up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original Hebrew and context of the time period often shed a lot of light on the meaning of verses like this.
For example, the word for "saw" here means more than just "glimpsed" or "noticed". It means "gazed upon" and means Ham spent some time watching Noah naked. The "naked" here implies shameful nudity. And the "told" here means something akin to "gossiped about" and literally implies betrayal.
It seems that Ham's sin was not simply seeing his dad naked. He basically ogled him, then ran and "tattled" to his brothers trying to make Noah look bad. In contrast, his brothers respectfully covered Noah and left him to sleep it off. Notice they didn't tell anyone.
|
|
Saw it. Well noah sucks. I'm okay with the other guy on this...god doesnt care about humans. They are just another plague rat clinging to a piece of driftwood. The noah story simply proves man's inhumanity to man is perpetuated forward by the ultimate hypocrite: noah.
And hermiony gets knocked up by 'grandfather' who bestowes his 'blessing' on her. Obviously.