|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 4, 2014 16:46:40 GMT -6
I understand, from reviews of the movie, that Noah was so depressed from what he had witnessed, that he got shit faced aftet the Ark landed. Noah did get drunk, according to the Bible, but his motive isn't contained in the text. By the way, depending on how you translate the text, it may indicate that his son raped him while he was passed out. This normally gets "cleaned up in the translation".
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 4, 2014 16:54:13 GMT -6
I understand, from reviews of the movie, that Noah was so depressed from what he had witnessed, that he got shit faced aftet the Ark landed. Noah did get drunk, according to the Bible, but his motive isn't contained in the text. The context suggests that Noah was trying out the first vintage and got a bit too celebratory, seemed to me. That would figure what with Lot's daughters getting it on with daddy. Ya gotta wonder how wide that biblical gutter was as many of the writers' minds as appear to have been floating in it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 4, 2014 19:23:48 GMT -6
According to Genesis, Noah planted a vineyard, made wine from its output and got bombed on it which had to have happened a good long while after the humongous flood unless God did some major mojo on that vineyard's growth. The big deal about that weird story is actually the fact that Noah's youngest son saw his dad naked and passed out (the latter apparently being incidental compared to seeing Pops naked). He goes and tells his two brothers who back into the tent where Noah is sprawled out and toss a blanket or something over the family jewels without looking while doing so. Noah then puts a curse on the youngest son for having seen him naked as if accidentally happening onto that shocking view was the son's fault simply for going looking for his father! Ya got me why seeing your same sex parent in the raw was so scandalous. Probably regarded as some silly violation of the commandment about honoring parents. Is castration some silly violation of the commandment about honoring parents? That is what we are talking about here. Google "noah castration" for details and various differences in the interpretive approach. May I suggest that you google the stories you decide to comment on? You will learn so much! At least you will if you avoid atheists and read people with real academic credentials in biblical literary criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 4, 2014 20:16:27 GMT -6
Hello Mr Eliott and welcome to Belief Splat. The reason I offered the explanation of rape somewhat tentatively is that, while Ham almost certainly did something more heinous than just see his father naked to earn the curse of eternal slavery, it isn't entirely clear what. Here is another treatment of the incident that folks might find interesting: www.sas.upenn.edu/~dmg2/what%20did%20ham%20do.pdfOf course, in my opinion, it might be worth asking whether the best explanation might simply be reverse social engineering. In other words, having already enslaved various races, might it not be tempting to suggest, scripturally, that there was divine justification for this? "Sure, we're exploiting them, but remember what Ham did to Noah? They had it coming..."
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 4, 2014 21:17:27 GMT -6
Looking at the stories in the Old Testament as a whole, there is little doubt that there is a fair amount of soldierly bragging going on (Amy-Jill Levine, a scholar at Vanderbilt, says that translators have to jump through hoops to find ways to avoid the incredibly crude language of so many stories. A good example of that occurs in a story that atheists particularly love--Elisha and the bears! The translated text usually uses "Go up! Go up"! to translate what the young men were shouting. In fact, according to Levine, they were shouting "F-ck you! F-ck you!"
Your comment about reverse social engineering is interesting because that is undoubtedly part of it, but I think we can lay it to rest as the main purpose by considering that a deliberately concocted story doesn't have loose ends, contradictions, vital information missing, and doesn't leave its audience to ferret out the story's meaning. Indeed, there is usually no one story. Many stories in the OT reflect multiple levels of narrative. That likely accounts for the two different names Moses' father-in-law is given. Two names; two main narrative traditions. Given the narrative complexity and literary skill of some of the books (Genesis is pre-eminent among them, I would say that the compiler has other aims. If one accepts the one compiler theory proposed by the minority in Jewish studies, the compiler was a courtier at the court of King David and intent on proving David's right to kingship.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 4, 2014 21:32:16 GMT -6
Mr Elliot,
You don't have to be a bible scholar to see that Noah and his family didn't learn any lessons from The Flood debacle. They sort of adopted the old habits of the Flood victims.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 4, 2014 23:02:13 GMT -6
Looking at the stories in the Old Testament as a whole, there is little doubt that there is a fair amount of soldierly bragging going on (Amy-Jill Levine, a scholar at Vanderbilt, says that translators have to jump through hoops to find ways to avoid the incredibly crude language of so many stories. A good example of that occurs in a story that atheists particularly love--Elisha and the bears! The translated text usually uses "Go up! Go up"! to translate what the young men were shouting. In fact, according to Levine, they were shouting "F-ck you! F-ck you!" Aside #! Vanderbilt--my alma mater Aside #2 You can rent the DVD for Elisha and the Bears at your local gay erotica shop Aside #3 Some of what I am saying here is true Your comment about reverse social engineering is interesting because that is undoubtedly part of it, but I think we can lay it to rest as the main purpose by considering that a deliberately concocted story doesn't have loose ends, contradictions, vital information missing, and doesn't leave its audience to ferret out the story's meaning. Indeed, there is usually no one story. Many stories in the OT reflect multiple levels of narrative. That likely accounts for the two different names Moses' father-in-law is given. Two names; two main narrative traditions. Given the narrative complexity and literary skill of some of the books (Genesis is pre-eminent among them, I would say that the compiler has other aims. If one accepts the one compiler theory proposed by the minority in Jewish studies, the compiler was a courtier at the court of King David and intent on proving David's right to kingship. In a more general sense, the authors and compilers were looking to enhance the political and religious standing of their various causes and sponsors at the various times during which the testament was written/rewritten.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 5, 2014 2:56:15 GMT -6
Is castration some silly violation of the commandment about honoring parents? That is what we are talking about here. Google "noah castration" for details and various differences in the interpretive approach. May I suggest that you google the stories you decide to comment on? You will learn so much! At least you will if you avoid atheists and read people with real academic credentials in biblical literary criticism. Why should I google the range of guesses as to what the original story may actually have said or meant either one? That's all they are, more or less educated guesses about a text containing numerous obscure words revealing little to us today as far removed as we are from the ancient culture whose tales these are. Even when interpreting contemporary writers' works, critics often get the writer's intent completely wrong. Atheists can't possibly have "real academic credentials in biblical literary criticism" eh? Did it ever occur to you that quite solid scholarly credentials can be and are held by those who've come to realize there's nothing to believe in? Bart Ehrman is a prime example of incontestable credentials that any fundamentalist would approve of and yet Ehrman has revealed that he has become agnostic. What I find quite likely is that the mere act of seeing another person naked, unconscious and thus vulnerable to the observer could easily be sufficient reason to inflict a curse. That would be particularly so in a culture that promotes strict delineation of the roles of parent and child, especially when the family is regarded as a unit the integrity of which must be respected and preserved above all but the clan's or tribe's deities. Thus, it could easily have been a horrific violation of the regard in which one's parent was to be held for a son merely to see a parent unclothed and completely vulnerable. The "bad son/good sons" contrast between Ham who displays no appropriate regard for his father's status and his brothers who show proper deference and respect is quite characteristic of morality tales and may have been the intent. Another likely interpretation is sociological--that this story was written long after the Israelites had begun to regard themselves as distinct from and far superior to the Canaanites. Thus, Noah places the curse of eternal slavery upon Ham's son who just happens to bear the name Canaan which may have been an attempt to justify enslaving Canaanites if not simply an expression of why Canaan was regarded as inferior. This could only be a myth attempting to explain the longstanding enmity between two quite diverse cultures just as the Adam and Eve tale explains the presumed cause of labor pains, women's fear of snakes and why people die.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 5, 2014 8:03:31 GMT -6
The problem with your approach is that we are not just guessing when we try to tease out the meaning of these stories. There are castration stories all over the ancient world and it is a familiar motif in literature. The reason for googling any particular story you are reading is to enrich your reading and understanding with possibilities that only someone who knows the language, culture and history of a place would know.. You may well be satisfied with a reading that reflects your modern understanding. That is fine. But you are going on to read things into the story that are not there.
Your remarks on Canaan are a case in point. On the surface, your theory is plausible. But the reality is that the enslaving likely never happened. Canaan was a major power in the region--only Egypt was more powerful. In fact, based mainly on archaeological finds the scholarly consensus now is that the Israelites were largely Canaanites in origin.(Canaanites were multiethnic people.) You can learn more about this by employing Ms. Google!
The Adam and Eve "tale" has so much more to it than explaining labor pains or fear of snakes or death! Honestly, I don't fault you for not understanding the story but, again, you could get a lot closer if you would do a little research. It does not explain why people die. What sense would it make for God to tell Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree, if Adam didn't know what death is? No, something else is going on.
But I am not going to tell you what! Ms Google might.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 8:45:27 GMT -6
The problem with your approach is that we are not just guessing when we try to tease out the meaning of these stories. There are castration stories all over the ancient world and it is a familiar motif in literature. The reason for googling any particular story you are reading is to enrich your reading and understanding with possibilities that only someone who knows the language, culture and history of a place would know.. You may well be satisfied with a reading that reflects your modern understanding. That is fine. But you are going on to read things into the story that are not there. Your remarks on Canaan are a case in point. On the surface, your theory is plausible. But the reality is that the enslaving likely never happened. Canaan was a major power in the region--only Egypt was more powerful. In fact, based mainly on archaeological finds the scholarly consensus now is that the Israelites were largely Canaanites in origin.(Canaanites were multiethnic people.) You can learn more about this by employing Ms. Google! The Adam and Eve "tale" has so much more to it than explaining labor pains or fear of snakes or death! Honestly, I don't fault you for not understanding the story but, again, you could get a lot closer if you would do a little research. It does not explain why people die. What sense would it make for God to tell Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree, if Adam didn't know what death is? No, something else is going on. But I am not going to tell you what! Ms Google might. By jumping from story to story, you seem to be making a generalization about Dot's, and likely the forum's biblical knowledge. A few comments: 1. The bible knowledge of the forum members vary. You will generally find people to be honest about their level of exposure and further study. 2. Suggesting Google as a remedy to missing knowledge is odd. Disinformation often overwhelms information on search engines. Citations of academic works and/or a recommendation of topics for library research might make more sense. 3. You have made two comments which allude to "avoiding atheists" in looking for Truth TM and/or accurate information. I am an atheist, and also (I think the forum will agree) have a broader and deeper knowledge of the bible and bible documents than anyone else on the site. 4. Perhaps you know more. Join the forum and prevent me from making silly claims like #3.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 5, 2014 9:10:15 GMT -6
Mr. Eliott,
What would be the point of understanding the meaning of Bible myths?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 9:42:43 GMT -6
Mr. Eliott, What would be the point of understanding the meaning of Bible myths? Please define "myths"?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 5, 2014 10:01:38 GMT -6
Mr. Eliott, What would be the point of understanding the meaning of Bible myths? Please define "myths"? Jeesh, Ken...did you miss the previous dozen times? A story which explains how things are and/or why things are done which generally involves supernatural events and/or beings.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 10:04:30 GMT -6
The problem with your approach is that we are not just guessing when we try to tease out the meaning of these stories. There are castration stories all over the ancient world and it is a familiar motif in literature. The reason for googling any particular story you are reading is to enrich your reading and understanding with possibilities that only someone who knows the language, culture and history of a place would know.. You may well be satisfied with a reading that reflects your modern understanding. That is fine. But you are going on to read things into the story that are not there. Your remarks on Canaan are a case in point. On the surface, your theory is plausible. But the reality is that the enslaving likely never happened. Canaan was a major power in the region--only Egypt was more powerful. In fact, based mainly on archaeological finds the scholarly consensus now is that the Israelites were largely Canaanites in origin.(Canaanites were multiethnic people.) You can learn more about this by employing Ms. Google! The Adam and Eve "tale" has so much more to it than explaining labor pains or fear of snakes or death! Honestly, I don't fault you for not understanding the story but, again, you could get a lot closer if you would do a little research. It does not explain why people die. What sense would it make for God to tell Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree, if Adam didn't know what death is? No, something else is going on. But I am not going to tell you what! Ms Google might. I am an atheist, and also (I think the forum will agree) have a broader and deeper knowledge of the bible and bible documents than anyone else on the site. I wouldn't say a "deeper knowledge of the bible" but certainly more about historical data and other documents. I am reminded of what Jesus said of those who had a extensive ability about history, documents and indeed the capacity to run circles around those who wanted to quote scriptures: "Jesus responded, 'You are wrong because you don't know either the scriptures or God's power.'" There is a difference
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 5, 2014 10:06:44 GMT -6
Jeesh, Ken...did you miss the previous dozen times? A story which explains how things are and/or why things are done which generally involves supernatural events and/or beings. It is a new poster and I think he deserves to know what definition one is using in as much as another definition is: "a widely held but false belief or idea" Think outside the box.
|
|