Bad Theology Pushed, Good Theology Rejected (Noah's Drunkenness)

Here, bad theology is being pushed:

Noah's Drunken Nakedness
DiscipleDojo | 23 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzjgRSQm-xs

Here are comments of mine, which I obviously hope are good theology. Read on to see how they were rejected.

1:37 A huge problem with your interpretation is, nowhere does it say Cham or Canaan uncovered Noah's nakedness.

It just says that Noah was, in drinking, uncovered.

Even more, the Leviticus law arguably uses "uncover thy father's nakedness" in a sense that's if not completely metaphoric, at least metonymic, and states the lesser evil to suggest the greater one involved. But Genesis 9:23 says it was the physical nakedness that was the problem.

I have another take.

There actually is another place in the Bible where a curse and offering wine are both involved. Kent Hovind loves to give truncated quotes from it suggesting it is always wrong to serve alcohol. But the full quote goes like this:

Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:15]

While more than one commentator considers this as being metaphorically true about Babylon, offering hypocritical help to countries it wants to destroy, one actually didn't miss the parallel with Noah.

The probability is, Canaan, the grandson, had tried out the wine first, and mendaciously pretended a certain quantity was safe, when it wasn't. He was condemned to be a correct server of wine, that is to give good advice in how much to drink.

The reason Canaan rather than Ham received the curse is that Canaan did more to deserve it. Ham was just reacting spontaneously, Canaan had plotted to entertain his dad by making fun of his grandfather.

If Babylon was founded by Amorrhaeans and these are a tribe of Canaan, that would imply that the plotting many commentators consider Habacuc as referring to was simply in keeping with the ancestor.

8:04 The curse was against one person, Canaan, and punished two, perhaps a few more persons:

• Canaan had to be serving the wine while others enjoyed it.
• Canaan could serve whoever served his brothers and sisters, but but not himself, and not his father. So, co-punished is maybe just Ham, maybe Ham, and the sons Chus, and Mesram, and Phuth, who would then also get no wine when Canaan served. But if Chus, and Mesram, and Phuth were served by others, Canaan could serve them.

8:10 "thicker skin"

Or PTSD ... or PTSD ...

11:01 There is a very deep problem with your view of the curse of Canaan.

It implies that children of rapes and of adultery are cursed.

In a stoning of an adulteress, some might argue that the offspring could be licitly disposed of simply because of being cursed.

This is not the case. God removed them, one may suppose, but it does not mean God cursed them, and also the removal was probably only possible if the adulteress was not yet known to be pregnant.

It's the kind of idea in which Ira Levin and Roman Polanski basically indicate that a certain child could be cursed for what surrounded its conception. I think the final words of that film, perhaps the novel too, reverse this idea, stating that the mother's love could lift the curse. But it is nevertheless kind of there in the background.

And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What is the meaning That you use among you this parable as a proverb in the land of Israel, saying: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 18:1-2]

Now, what does God think of this idea?

As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel Behold all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, the same shall die
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 18:3-4]

Please note, the children that drowned in the Flood, they were not cursed children, they were liberated from becoming cursed when growing up in very bad surroundings.

[Tried to add following]

You might reply Nephelim, and one might reply to that that the Book of Henoch may not as it is now be giving the correct account of them.

Or, if it did, they were an exception because they were not fully human.

[I discovered, not only was the comment gone in which I tried to add another below, but all of them were. That's another step in censorship of my activity as commenter. I'm not yet sure as I write this who did this.]