Was Noah a sinful man?

[MennoSota]

Avoiding God means avoiding Saul/Paul? Whopper of a leap there, man!

The reasons I disbelieve Saul/Paul (that is to say, disbelieve many of the things he says, not all) are listed elsewhere on this forum. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find them. Alas this is a detraction from the thread.

The questions I posed in my OP are still there if you'd like to read and answer them and participate on the theme of the thread.

You remind me of Saul. I'm excited to see how God may adjust your thoughts.
Do you consider yourself to be righteous or do you consider yourself unrighteousness? Would God see you as a type of Noah or as a type of Ahab?

 

[Stravinsk]

You remind me of Saul. I'm excited to see how God may adjust your thoughts.
Do you consider yourself to be righteous or do you consider yourself unrighteousness? Would God see you as a type of Noah or as a type of Ahab?

You remind me of a shepherd pointing to a scarecrow affixed to a rock in a field.

What I consider myself is of no concern to me in this matter, for if I am to make the judgement on only my own council, then of what use is it be counciled by Another? I have thought and done Righteous and Unrighteous, but the final judgement of my life belongs to Another.
Can you answer your own questions?

 

[Andrew]

I never knew that Paul's name could be used to slander another person just because that person for some reason or another doesn't agree with him...
..but Paul is pretty much the gentile hero of apostles and you either agree with him or you believe him as an antichrist figure.
We can settle this here and now but for stravs sake I figure it better to just let this one go.
There is certainly an amount of tolerance the mods can only handle and I am not sure if anyone here has recently crossed that line but let us all re evaluate our judgments and let whoever this may concern re evaluate their 'judgements'...

look I done a doodle today.

 

[Imalive]

I never knew that Paul's name could be used to slander another person just because that person for some reason or another doesn't agree with him...
..but Paul is pretty much the gentile hero of apostles and you either agree with him or you believe him as an antichrist figure.
We can settle this here and now but for stravs sake I figure it better to just let this one go.
There is certainly an amount of tolerance the mods can only handle and I am not sure if anyone here has recently crossed that line but let us all re evaluate our judgments and let whoever this may concern re evaluate their 'judgements'...

look I done a doodle today.

He looks like Lucky Luke!

 

[Imalive]

You remind me of Saul. I'm excited to see how God may adjust your thoughts.
Do you consider yourself to be righteous or do you consider yourself unrighteousness? Would God see you as a type of Noah or as a type of Ahab?

One thing's for sure, not an Ahab.

 

[Stravinsk]

I never knew that Paul's name could be used to slander another person just because that person for some reason or another doesn't agree with him...
..but Paul is pretty much the gentile hero of apostles and you either agree with him or you believe him as an antichrist figure.
We can settle this here and now but for stravs sake I figure it better to just let this one go.
There is certainly an amount of tolerance the mods can only handle and I am not sure if anyone here has recently crossed that line but let us all re evaluate our judgments and let whoever this may concern re evaluate their 'judgements'...

As for "settling" anything, I'd rather just have participants answer the questions in my post. You may have noticed there are a number of them in this section.

Imalive and Josiah have both provided their answers, maybe you can share whatever insight you have into the questions posed in the OP. There shouldn't be any "tolerance" needed for questions, such as the one I have put forth in my original post. I'd suggest that any "limited tolerance" for such questions would really just be an adverse reaction to actually considering them and answering them. And you are correct in that I consider Saul/Paul an antichrist, a very very big one, but I'm giving people a chance to show that I am in error. So if you have an answer, please provide it. I just hope no one gets angry if I don't think it works.

 

[Andrew]

As for "settling" anything, I'd rather just have participants answer the questions in my post. You may have noticed there are a number of them in this section.

Imalive and Josiah have both provided their answers, maybe you can share whatever insight you have into the questions posed in the OP. There shouldn't be any "tolerance" needed for questions, such as the one I have put forth in my original post. I'd suggest that any "limited tolerance" for such questions would really just be an adverse reaction to actually considering them and answering them. And you are correct in that I consider Saul/Paul an antichrist, a very very big one, but I'm giving people a chance to show that I am in error. So if you have an answer, please provide it. I just hope no one gets angry if I don't think it works.

Well he became a drunk after the flood lol but perhaps God found him righteous even to the point where he didn't 'forget' him. We are then told not to be caught drunk, could be a reference but the main point is that ALL characters in the bible fall short, (with the exception of one) and so do we all, so... yes and no to the op question

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

He just got drunk once. Maybe he didnt even know there was alcohol in it. What is not called a sin though is that he cursed his son for climbing his bed, which I find jerkish, but thats because I cant get the image out of my mind of a 3 y o climbing on a double bed.

 

[psalms 91]

He just got drunk once. Maybe he didnt even know there was alcohol in it. What is not called a sin though is that he cursed his son for climbing his bed, which I find jerkish, but thats because I cant get the image out of my mind of a 3 y o climbing on a double bed.

One, his sons were grown, two, how would you have done if you had just witnessed the destruction of all your friends and neighbors, the whole world, other than you? You might have got drunk as well

 

[Imalive]

One, his sons were grown, two, how would you have done if you had just witnessed the destruction of all your friends and neighbors, the whole world, other than you? You might have got drunk as well

Yes that I understand, but not that he cursed his son or nephew.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/curse-Ham-Canaan.html

Guess he did something bad. Climb a bed still means literally climb on a bed thats upstairs w a ladder though in my vocabulary.

 

[psalms 91]

The problem was that he ssaw his father naked as the next verses tell us

 

[Imalive]

The problem was that he ssaw his father naked as the next verses tell us

If that was all he overreacted very much.

 

[NewCreation435]

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

This verse indicates that without faith no one can truly please God. Not Noah or anyone else. So, the conclusion is that Noah was a man of faith. This is what pleased God. It doesn't mean he was perfect. He got drunk and exposed himself after the flood in his tent and his sons had to cover him up. He was not perfect, nor are any of us.

 

[Stravinsk]

It is interesting to see how when the mind is confronted with an obvious contradiction, all kinds of straw men and other weak justifications have to be introduced in an effort to silence the original points highlighted.

No one has yet proven that Noah, in his first 600 years prior to entering the ark, in any way fits the description we are given in Romans 3:9-18.

So after this 600 year time period, Noah faltered a bit and got drunk once. Even if that were a grievous sin despite it's not being within the 10 commandments, it still happened after he was chosen for his task. I'm afraid that even if he got drunk before this time, it still doesn't make him "swift to shed blood", a "non seeker of God", "does no good", "a mouth full of deceit", "cursing and bitterness", actions that are "destructive and full of misery", "without fear of God"

 

[NewCreation435]

It is interesting to see how when the mind is confronted with an obvious contradiction, all kinds of straw men and other weak justifications have to be introduced in an effort to silence the original points highlighted.

No one has yet proven that Noah, in his first 600 years prior to entering the ark, in any way fits the description we are given in Romans 3:9-18.

So after this 600 year time period, Noah faltered a bit and got drunk once. Even if that were a grievous sin despite it's not being within the 10 commandments, it still happened after he was chosen for his task. I'm afraid that even if he got drunk before this time, it still doesn't make him "swift to shed blood", a "non seeker of God", "does no good", "a mouth full of deceit", "cursing and bitterness", actions that are "destructive and full of misery", "without fear of God"

There no specific information about what type of lifestyle or choices Noah made during those 600 years, so we don't have anything to go by. The only thing we know for sure is that at the time when God told Noah to make the ark that he was a man of faith and found favor with God. As I have told you before, even though there is history in the Bible it is not primarily a history book. So, there is a lot of information left out. Even of many of the main characters in the Bible there is plenty left out that we don't know.

 

[Stravinsk]

There no specific information about what type of lifestyle or choices Noah made during those 600 years, so we don't have anything to go by. The only thing we know for sure is that at the time when God told Noah to make the ark that he was a man of faith and found favor with God. As I have told you before, even though there is history in the Bible it is not primarily a history book. So, there is a lot of information left out. Even of many of the main characters in the Bible there is plenty left out that we don't know.

The specific information you say isn't there is right there in my OP. In Noah's introduction he is called perfect and righteous and walked with God. Wait, is there a context for this righteousness and walking with God? Yes, there is. "In all his generations" or "in all his time". So the assumption that he may have somehow in previous years fit Paul's description for all men is quite erroneous.

I'd say it's erroneous in general for the context of which it is supposed to apply, unless we believe that every single person on this earth that has ever lived fits all the descriptors given in Romans 3:9-18.

 

[NewCreation435]

The specific information you say isn't there is right there in my OP. In Noah's introduction he is called perfect and righteous and walked with God. Wait, is there a context for this righteousness and walking with God? Yes, there is. "In all his generations" or "in all his time". So the assumption that he may have somehow in previous years fit Paul's description for all men is quite erroneous.

I'd say it's erroneous in general for the context of which it is supposed to apply, unless we believe that every single person on this earth that has ever lived fits all the descriptors given in Romans 3:9-18.

You do know then that Romans 3:10-18 are quotes from Psalms right? He was quoting psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3 and psalm 36:1. It didn't originate with paul

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

You do know then that Romans 3:10-18 are quotes from Psalms right? He was quoting psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3 and psalm 36:1. It didn't originate with paul

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

Of course I know that, and had you read my dialogue with Imalive in this very thread, you'd have as well. Thanks for replying.

 

[NewCreation435]

Of course I know that, and had you read my dialogue with Imalive in this very thread, you'd have as well. Thanks for replying.

Your right I went back and saw you referenced that back around post 17. It's just important to consider context of these verses. They weren't originally in reference to noah

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

Your right I went back and saw you referenced that back around post 17. It's just important to consider context of these verses. They weren't originally in reference to noah

Sent from my H710VL using Tapatalk

I never said they specifically referenced a single individual. But when Paul takes them out the contexts in which they were originally written and then applies them to promote his idea that together, they represent all men under sin, then of course Noah is included. The idea doesn't stop there, as everyone who ever lived is also supposed to fit the descriptions in the passages lifted.