Noah's fall?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CeciliaS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CeciliaS

Guest
Hello!

I am in the midst of an on-line Bible course which, unfortunately, doesn’t allow me to ask any specific questions. So I am putting the question out to any of you who might be able to help me.

The course discusses Salvation History, and mentions Noah’s fall, without really being specific. As if it were obvious that Noah fell, and let’s go on. I don’t understand specifically what Noah’s fall consists of. When Noah got drunk and his son “uncovered his father’s nakedness”, was that not Noah’s SON turning away from God? It is stated that the expression is an old Hebrew idiomatic expression for incest, meaning that Noah’s son slept with Noah’s wife, implying that he was usurping Noah’s authority.

When I tried to find out more, I found more than a few Fundamentalist sites that made no mention of this interpretation, insisting instead that Noah’s fall consists of his having sinned BY BRINGING GRAPE VINES OR SEEDS ONTO THE ARK, WHEN HE KNEW THAT GOD WOULDN’T WANT FOR HIM TO PLANT GRAPEVINES AND MAKE WINE, or, in other words, Noah’s fall consists of his having saved the grape species, and making wine afterwards, since drinking alcohol is a terrible sin.

This interpretation is useful in that laughing lifts my spirit, but I am still stuck with my original question: what is meant by the fall of Noah?

CeciliaS
 
CeciliaS said:
Hello!

I am in the midst of an on-line Bible course which, unfortunately, doesn’t allow me to ask any specific questions. So I am putting the question out to any of you who might be able to help me.

The course discusses Salvation History, and mentions Noah’s fall, without really being specific. As if it were obvious that Noah fell, and let’s go on. I don’t understand specifically what Noah’s fall consists of. When Noah got drunk and his son “uncovered his father’s nakedness”, was that not Noah’s SON turning away from God? It is stated that the expression is an old Hebrew idiomatic expression for incest, meaning that Noah’s son slept with Noah’s wife, implying that he was usurping Noah’s authority.

When I tried to find out more, I found more than a few Fundamentalist sites that made no mention of this interpretation, insisting instead that Noah’s fall consists of his having sinned BY BRINGING GRAPE VINES OR SEEDS ONTO THE ARK, WHEN HE KNEW THAT GOD WOULDN’T WANT FOR HIM TO PLANT GRAPEVINES AND MAKE WINE, or, in other words, Noah’s fall consists of his having saved the grape species, and making wine afterwards, since drinking alcohol is a terrible sin.

This interpretation is useful in that laughing lifts my spirit, but I am still stuck with my original question: what is meant by the fall of Noah?

CeciliaS
Click to expand...
Usually the phrase “the fall” referes to a Chrisitan concept of Adam’s sin.

May I ask who or what organization is giving the Bible course. Which Bible are they using? My suggestion would be to go back and check how Adam is presented and how Original Sin is presented.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
I’m curious about which “Fundamentalist” sites you looked at. I’ve never heard that interpretation, and would have also joined you in a fit of laughter had I ever heard such silliness. Alcohol is not sinful, but the abuse of alcohol (like the abuse of ANYTHING) is sinful, and I believe that was what “Noah’s fall” might refer to. He got drunk, which allowed his youngest son to do whatever it was that he did (I have heard that the sin of his youngest son was that he performed a homosexual act on his father, but all the scripture tells us is that he saw his father’s nakedness and told his brothers about it (I get the feeling it was in a boastful manner, but that is just my personal opinion).

Hope this helps.

Pax!
 
CeciliaS,

Great question.

Noah’s fall refers to his drunkenness. It is not the same fall that others are referring to, Adam’s sin, but rather it is a fall of his own. It is him dehumanizing himself to the point that his son can sleep with his wife.

Random: are you doing the online bible studies through salvationhistory.com? Those are great Bible studies, and serve as overview of the Old Testament.

The bigger picture here, and you read this if you are doing the course I’m thinking of, is that Noah’s fall, or drunkenness, is another failure on the behalf of first-born sons. There is a whole line of first-born sons in the OT who do not live up to their calling (to be priests of God most high - see Melchizedek). This points us ahead to Jesus, who is the first-born son who accomplishes what God wanted to accomplish from the beginning of time, to bring all creation to himself.

Hope this helps!
 
CFH said:
CeciliaS,

Great question.

Noah’s fall refers to his drunkenness. It is not the same fall that others are referring to, Adam’s sin, but rather it is a fall of his own. It is him dehumanizing himself to the point that his son can sleep with his wife.
Click to expand...
chapter/verse please
 
I believe that the story of Noah’s fall is in Gen 9, verses 21-22. As Cecilia stated above, the phrase “uncovered his father’s nakedness” is a Hebrew expression for incest.
 
From reading other comments it seems that Noah being drunk was the sin. He lived 950 years loving God and in a moment of relaxation (for lack of a better word) he got drunk. That was the only offense of this great man. But it is mentioned. His son was also a jerk for making fun of his father. The moral of the story is not to relax when it comes to faith. Be on gaurd.
 
I am amazed at how many choose to believe an extrabiblical accusation of incest.

Adam and Even were naked and not ashamed. They were beyond the reach of law and grace because they had not sinned. Nakedness simply means that the flesh is exposed. Since their flesh had not sinned, there was no sin exposed by their nakedness.

After sin, nakedness reveals our sin. The purpose of the garment God created was to cover sin.

The purpose of familial relationships is to assist each other in overcoming the sinful flesh. Not only are you not to have relations with relations, but you are not to broadcast their sin, since you are supposed to be helping them overcome them.

As such, the kid was broadcasting Noah’s sin, which the brothers refused to partake in.

Noah is also a type of Christ. Drinking wine is what Christ does with us in resurrection. Being drunk is a symbol of the Holy Spirit (ie pentecost). The picture is of the resurrected Christ.

The first son represents a person who sees Christ as only a man, who was dead, and consequently, since he bore our sin, died in sin. The two sons represent the dual-natured person, made in Christ’s image, who refuse to focus on the death and choose to look upon Christ in resurrection.

We do not proclaim Christ as naked, but as clothed in glory.
 
How does Lot fit into all this with his relationships sexually with his daughters after the ritual cleansing of S&G and death of their mother who turned into a pillar of salt?
I have seen salt mentioned as a good thing in the bible also.
Not in this case. In this case daddy gets drunk and gets you and your sister pregnant by him.
Did the grapes really come from Noah, on the Ark? LOL!
How could this be possible??
 
rcjones said:
Being drunk is a symbol of the Holy Spirit (ie pentecost).
Click to expand...
A slight clarification, please. Being “drunk” refers to the over-joyous apostles who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Having “too much new wine” is not a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The crowd outside the upper room were the ones who thought the noise of praising the Holy Spirit sounded similar to happy drunks. Read Acts 2: 5-13.
 
grannymh said:
A slight clarification, please. Being “drunk” refers to the over-joyous apostles who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Having “too much new wine” is not a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The crowd outside the upper room were the ones who thought the noise of praising the Holy Spirit sounded similar to happy drunks. Read Acts 2: 5-13.
Click to expand...
Sorry for not explaining in more detail… You will find that in the sensus plenior, intoxication is a reference to the Holy Ghost.

Sychar means intoxicated. It is a hint that the Holy Spirit gathered the Bride as Jesus spoke to the woman by the well.
Samuel’s mother was thought to be intoxicated when she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost to bear a child as a foreshadowing of the birth of Christ.

Watch for it and you will see it.
 
CFH said:
I believe that the story of Noah’s fall is in Gen 9, verses 21-22. As Cecilia stated above, the phrase “uncovered his father’s nakedness” is a Hebrew expression for incest.
Click to expand...
Naw, no way, sorry there is no implication of incest in this case, reason being…

23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Shem and Japheth physically covered Noah’s physical nakedness with a garment. No text to support or imply anything else. this teaching could be pathetic at best, from what I see.

you guy’s got to be careful about trusting what other’s interpret in Scripture. You must understand, a man is given his Bible. Ether the man uses it, or he prays to God the Father in the Name of Jesus. And I wouldn’t buy that incest stuff, some times a root of a word in Hebrew may be in a word like the english language but that is not necessarily the whole of the meaning in it’s use in a text. There are many people out there that know just enough to be dangerous.

This may help to clarify
jewishencyclopedia.com/
 
DPMartin said:
Naw, no way, sorry there is no implication of incest in this case, reason being…

23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Shem and Japheth physically covered Noah’s physical nakedness with a garment. No text to support or imply anything else. this teaching could be pathetic at best, from what I see.

you guy’s got to be careful about trusting what other’s interpret in Scripture. You must understand, a man is given his Bible. Ether the man uses it, or he prays to God the Father in the Name of Jesus. And I wouldn’t buy that incest stuff, some times a root of a word in Hebrew may be in a word like the english language but that is not necessarily the whole of the meaning in it’s use in a text. There are many people out there that know just enough to be dangerous.

This may help to clarify
jewishencyclopedia.com/
Click to expand...
There is plenty of text to support this. Why would Noah curse Canaan like this? Those are some pretty harsh words. I think you would do well to read Leviticus 20: 17ff, as well as Leviticus 18: 16-18. Certainly things can get lost in translation, but please don’t insult someone for it. There is plenty of context and evidence to support incest in this case.
 
rcjones said:
Sorry for not explaining in more detail… You will find that in the sensus plenior, intoxication is a reference to the Holy Ghost.
.
Click to expand...
Your explanation is appreciated.

If that is an example of the sensus plenior, then I shall stick with the teaching of the Catholic Church and its Catechism.
 
grannymh said:
Your explanation is appreciated.

If that is an example of the sensus plenior, then I shall stick with the teaching of the Catholic Church and its Catechism.
Click to expand...
Hey granny, how have you been doing?

Hope you have been well.

Is an example all examples possible?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Hey granny, how have you been doing?

Hope you have been well.

Is an example all examples possible?
Click to expand...
I’ve been traveling to see old friends, Stawberry Jam. Had some health scares but all turned out o.k. Praise God!

Is there a word missing in your question? It is past my bedtime and my eyes are closing.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
I’ve been traveling to see old friends, Stawberry Jam. Had some health scares but all turned out o.k. Praise God!

Is there a word missing in your question? It is past my bedtime and my eyes are closing.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
Granny,

My deepest thoughts to you in this time. You know I think about you, and of course I am sad to hear this. I wish you only the best, and your health is a thing I will have thoughts about even though I too am nodding off. I hope your God hears them anyway.
Will follow up tomorrow night, or the next my friend.
Yes, my post is in error.
One example is not enough to be convincing Granny. Is it something that is repeatable in controlled circumstances?
You know the drill.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Granny,

My deepest thoughts to you in this time. You know I think about you, and of course I am sad to hear this. I wish you only the best, and your health is a thing I will have thoughts about even though I too am nodding off. I hope your God hears them anyway.
Will follow up tomorrow night, or the next my friend.
Yes, my post is in error.
One example is not enough to be convincing Granny. Is it something that is repeatable in controlled circumstances?
You know the drill.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I look forward to your posting.

Yes, I was citing one example regarding the Holy Spirit taken from sensus plenior.
Post 11 said: “You will find that in the sensus plenior, intoxication is a reference to the Holy Ghost.” In common language, intoxication, without any poetic qualification, is not a virtue.

While every other point in sensus plenior may be wonderful as a piece of apple pie, if only one key doctrine such as the Blessed Trinity is off base, then there is no real reason for me to bother with the rest of sensus plenior.

In other words, Catholicism contains the whole pie regarding the three Persons of the
Blessed Trinity. The teachings contained in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass lift one’s soul to God. Why muddy the waters of salvation by using intoxication as a reference to God?

Of course I respect the freedom of others to choose any approach to God or to no God. For me, there is no need to spend time on someone’s speculation about Scripture when there is far better inspiration in the prayers of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17
 
While every other point in sensus plenior may be wonderful as a piece of apple pie, if only one key doctrine such as the Blessed Trinity is off base, then there is no real reason for me to bother with the rest of sensus plenior.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry that you are unable to discern between mechanism and doctrine.

The Prostitute-Virgin Bride theme of sensus plenior, to which Mary contributes does not impute any kind of unrighteousness upon Mary. It is a pattern of word play that foreshadows the fact that she was thought to be unfaithful. Nearly every woman of prominence participates in foreshadowing it.

Rebekah was a virtuous woman, yet in word play it is said the servant ‘took’ her, which word also means married. Also it says that when she saw Isaac she covered herself, implying in the word play alone that she was uncovered.

Sometimes the word play reverse the hint and the reality. For instance Gomer was a prostitute, yet she named her first son as “God sows” as a hint of the Virgin birth.

Together Rachel and Leah fill the pattern with Leah playing the prostitute role.

Both Rachel and Rebekah were at the same well as the woman at Sychar. Rebekah was chosen by the Father, Rachel was called (wooed) and worked for by the Son, and the woman at Sychar was gathered by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing wrong with the doctrine of the Trinity in sensus plenior. The doctrine is taught in great detail with much personal detail and richness that doesn’t exist in the literal, while never contradicting it.

What I call sensus plenior is very close to the Quadriga contained in the Catechism, and I am here attempting to find out more about it and reconcile the differences. So rather than simply condemn sensus plenior I would appreciate access to some Catholic writers using the Quadriga on the same subject and see how they handled the three women at the well without using the “intoxication” of Sychar.

How do they teach Samuel’s birth as a foreshadow of the virgin birth without it?

Thanks for your kindness and generosity in advance.
 
CFH said:
There is plenty of text to support this. Why would Noah curse Canaan like this? Those are some pretty harsh words. I think you would do well to read Leviticus 20: 17ff, as well as Leviticus 18: 16-18. Certainly things can get lost in translation, but please don’t insult someone for it. There is plenty of context and evidence to support incest in this case.
Click to expand...
CFH

thanks for the reply

If the Lord God addresses the subject understood as incest, in plain fashion in Leviticus then why is it not mentioned in plain fashion in the case here with Noah? If it’s not there, it’s not there. Who would teach, you or would want you to think or believe something about Scripture that was not said in Scripture?

Wasn’t this the method used at the tree of knowledge of good and evil, by the serpent? To get them to think and believe something that was not said by the Lord God. Hence using the words for the purpose other than knowing and understanding God’s Word.

If you are offended by my plain speaking on the matter of watch out for what teaching you should trust, sorry but it was for your sake that you should. God Bless, my friend In Christ. I believe Solomon sums it up in this…

Prov:6:23: For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top