20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

Noah was an angry alcoholic

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2005/05/noahs-nakedness

>>9405800
I think Noah was pissed because his first son didn't take care of him but instead told his brothers who then were men of action and cared for their naked father in the most respectful way possible. Noah was disappointed, but his statement is more a prophecy than a curse as men of honest action will always rule over those who don't know what the correct action is.

>>9405890
Is this satire? What's the point of reading the Bible if you have to make leaps like that to make sense of it?

>>9405952
It's basically how you need to read certain passages as a Christian, a fair amount of the Old Testament doesn't really make sense or match up with Christian beliefs.

>>9405890
Yeah clearly those authors are just obsessed with buttsex. They give Christianity a bad name.

>>9405952
If you're willing to allow that the text can be read at different levels, then what's the problem? It's an ancient text from the near east, about which I'm guessing that most of us know little about. There's clearly something metaphorical being said in the passage, and this reading both makes sense of the passage both in line with traditional literary themes (oedipal anxieties?) and within the larger text. My favourite midrashic reading of the text suggests that Ham castrated Noah in the tent.

>>9405989
>Ham castrated Noah
Wut?! How can one grasp harder at a straw?

>>9405998
You grasp until it snaps off.

>>9405998
Look up midrash. It's a traditional Jewish manner of engaging the Torah... kind of like scholars having an ongoing discussion in the margin of the text. The interpretation itself gains a sort fo authority and history, which is then subject to interpretation. I like the castration idea because it's so wacky when you compare it to the literal reading of the text.

>>9406003
>applauds

>>9406009
>Jews
Dropped. They manipulate their own book to justify their denial of Christ.

>>9405952
I didn't read the article, but everything written by Moses(first 5 books) is like that. He blazed through events; he didn't write for study he wrote for basic people to have a basic understanding. A good preface for his works is "as far as you're concerned this is what happened."
Look at the first two verses:Moses became a husbandman again and planted a vineyard. Then he got drunk on the wine and passed out." That's like a whole fucking year in two sentences that make it sound like a linear and immediate sequence of actions.
Fact is he always writes like that and there is no real room for scrutiny in his writing because it isn't written for scrutiny. That's not going to stop people from scrutinizing and theorizing, but there's just not enough there to have certainty beyond what he did write. That's not a Bible thing so much as a Moses thing.
The Jews have better studies of the OT than Christians do, so I'd look there

File: pepecivilization.jpg (47KB, 636x801px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 636x801px

>>9405800
This, OP: >>9405920


>22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

lol guise look at him he passed out naked what a fool he is, amirite???

This sentiment of respect for the parent (honoring thy father and mother) is simply social law. This is a parable that teaches moral law and a responsibility to moral action, nothing more. The same sort of moral instruction is repeated in Ecclesiastes, where lazy people starve or die by the sword and children of God (ie, self-actualized, responsible) plow the fields and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

File: 1471152729613.jpg (52KB, 400x460px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x460px

>>9406035
>written by Moses
Here's your (You)

>>9406035
>everything written by Moses(first 5 books)

Dammit. Try not to embarrass yourself when you're finally allowed to sit at the grown-up table.

>>9406039
>This is a parable that teaches moral law and a responsibility to moral action, nothing more.

So fuck the scholars who have spent a career learning the languages, the literature, and the customs of the ancient near east. This text teaches social platitudes and nothing more.

Or maybe there is more to it than what the layman will see several thousand years later.

>>9406070
You're an idiot. It is possible to look too far into something. And people who make a living off of reintrepreting something that's been interpreted a million times are prime examples of people likely to do this.

>>9406070
>So fuck the scholars who have spent a career learning the languages, the literature, and the customs of the ancient near east. This text teaches social platitudes and nothing more.


Yes, fuck them.

This passage in particular has no deeper mystical meaning, sorry. Much of the OT is like this, rules upon rules designed to raise filthy fucking dirt-scratching heathens up into a clean, prosperous civilization. A lack of literacy made parables told by an authority figure the ideal method of transmission.

I am not denying that parts of the OT and NT are mystical and have hidden meaning. Just this one doesn't. And if some theologian's misguided understanding of the work causes him to believe EVERYTHING has a hidden meaning, fuck him. Yes. He is part of the problem of religion and its inflated importance in conflict today.

>>9406101
I never said anything about mysticism or theology... this is just textual scholarship, undertaken by both religious and secular scholars. In the article that anon linked above, the author is citing other scholars in an attempt to make sense of the passage based upon the language in other parts of Genesis. He's not even reading it as a religious text, but a literary one. He points out that the phrase "uncovered his nakedness" means something particular at other points in the text and, noting that the tent is referred to in a feminine possessive manner, suggests an interpretation. I mean, this is just explication... gathering evidence and making an argument.

The suggestions in this thread about Shem and Japheth being "men of action" and the vague notion of this being a "parable that teaches moral law and responsibility" are projections based upon uninformed surmises about the text. These are not invalid ways of reading the text, but they are less informed than an educated engagement with the language by someone who has expertise in the matter. I'm not even endorsing the reading given in the link, but I think it's silly to disregard it outright because it offends muh sensibilities.

>>9406280
You should have been so clear in your initial post, anon.

Analysis of the text for unusual word choice that can imply a poetic meaning that has been lost over time and translation is fine, but it doesn't negate my assertion. This is a parable meant to turn inbred, shameless savages into a people fit for their God.

>>9406280
>Not invalid way to read the text but...
Well which is it, take a stand they can't all be valid ways of reading the text. You are as divisive as Satan himself.

>>9406298
>they can't all be valid ways of reading the text
I did say above that the text can be read at different levels. I think that there is some validity in the suggestions above, but they are not equally valid, obviously. I objected to the outright dismissal of the scholarly interpretation... I see it as one of /lit/'s besetting sins.

While my bias is tilted toward a scholarly approach, I'm not dogmatic about it... anyone who reads the text thoughtfully and tries to make sense of the whole thing has to fit the Noah/Ham incident into some framework of understanding, right? And also affirm the value of the /lit/izen making sense of it or the layman sitting in the pew; I'm not expert myself and my understanding is a mix of reading thoughtfully and gleaning insight from experts. But I should think some humility should attend any interpretation... rather than declaring "this is what it is and nothing else," saying "this is how I make sense of it, though my knowledge is limited." All scholarship should not be dismissed because there is some irresponsible scholarship, nor should it be dismissed because I don't understand it all.

>>9405960
This is absolute nonsense.

>>9406325
It's not a dismissal of all intellectuals, just of that interpretation. Secular interpretation of the Bible ought to be taken with a healthy grain of salt just as historical/scientific interpretation by a religious writer ought to.

>>9406358
Fair enough.