Well I searched into it more. And it seems Noah did get drunk. But this was after the Ark and everything. Before the ark and everything it has no mention of Noah getting drunk or being a drunk, so nevertheless at this time he was pleasing to God. So this incident of being drunk would be irrelevant to the ark.

Yes, that is the verse(s) I had found. But if we go back a little further we will see this is after the flood.

One incidental action does not condemn anyone. There is room for repentance. It does not say that Noah remained a drunk or was a drunk before hand. He was seen pleasing to God before hand.

Genesis 9:1
1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

My point was about perfection, if he was perfect, he would not be able to even give into being drunk whether it was before the flood or after the flood.

Sure he would be able to. Perfect is without blemish, without fault at the time of mention. For instance, say you have a painting, you think it's absolutely the most beautiful painting, absolutely perfect in every way. Then later down the road it gets a cup of coffee spilt on it, totally destroying the image that was on this painting. Now that the painting has fault eg., the coffee stain, does that mean it NEVER was without blemish? It NEVER was a pleasing sight?

Sure.

But first let me point out to you that what you've posted here doesn't say anything at all about anything being unforgivable.

But here are verses that make claims about things being unforgivable.


Mark.3:28-29 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:


See, this is referring to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost and says nothing at all about accepting Jesus as lord.


Luke.12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.


Again, the reference of not being forgiven is directly related to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and there is no mention whatsoever about Jesus being Lord or anything like that.

Let's see here...

Mark.3:28-29 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:


This means the pretty much the exact same thing as

Matthew 10:33

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
======================

Definition of Blasphemy -

blas·phe·my/ˈblasfəmē/
Noun: The act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk

So we can see totally denying Jesus would get someone the boot, which in the same action they would be speaking blasphemy. So the two go hand in hand with one another. So still denying Jesus Christ is the only way not to receive the gift of heaven, for denying Jesus Christ is doing blasphemous actions and or speaking blasphemy.

Look what I found about Noah...

A Staff Report from the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah? (Part 1)
January 25, 2005

Dear Straight Dope:

Genesis 9:20-25 seems to be one of the strangest stories in the Bible. Noah lands the ark, plants a vineyard, gets drunk off its wine, lays around naked in his tent and is seen by his son Ham who reports it to his two brothers. Noah sobers up knowing what Ham did and curses his grandson Canaan who apparently was not even there. What is even stranger is when I started researching this mystery I discovered the story was once used to support slavery. Further there are theories floating around concerning castration and incest. What is the real story? Is there a deeper meaning to this than Noah having a case of misdirected anger while hung over? Or are we only hearing the watered-down version in our modern day Bible?

— Steve, Oak Park, Illinois

Yes, there are some strange stories in the Bible, no question about it. And there are those who happily twist the biblical stories to suit their own political ends. I'm going to split this into two different questions to be answered in two separate articles: First, the textual interpretation of the story itself, and second the history of how that the story has been used to "justify" slavery and the subjugation of black people in America.

The story itself:

After the Flood, Noah and family emerge from the Ark, the only humans to survive the great deluge. I'll use the traditional King James translation of Genesis 9:20-25, since that was the one read from pulpits in pre-Civil War America:

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

What the hell is this all about? The prior verses were lofty poetry and grand promises following the Flood, and here we have a brief description of a very bizarre event. This story, like many other of the earliest stories, almost certainly had an oral tradition before it was written down, and that oral tradition is now lost to us (in fact, was probably lost before 600 BC). The initial audiences of the written version knew the story, and didn't need to have all the details. We're left with speculation and guesswork. (Note that we're engaged here in literary textual interpretation, not historical veracity.)

The only other person in Genesis to get drunk is Abraham's nephew Lot, who gets drunk after the destruction of Sodom--as with the Noah story, an incident with sexual overtones following a great disaster. Noah has witnessed dreadful catastrophe. Overwhelmed by the task of rebuilding a destroyed world, virtually alone and friendless in an almost empty world, perhaps he had some guilt that he survived when so many perished. So he got drunk and naked in the privacy of his tent. It's not what you expect of a great biblical hero, but it's a very human reaction.

Ham comes into the tent, sees his father drunk and naked and goes out to tell his two brothers. The two brothers come in backwards so as to cover their father without looking at him. Noah wakes up and curses, not Ham, but Ham's son Canaan.

Why? A straightforward reading of the text is that Ham saw his naked father, left him that way, and gossiped about it to his two brothers, ridiculing their father. Ham's sin is thus immodesty, lack of filial respect, and failure to take action to protect his father.

The problem with this plain reading is that the severity of Noah's reaction suggests that there is something more sordid going on than simply ridicule. But what? Speculation abounds. Again, most authorities think there was an oral tradition that was left out of the written text for reasons of delicacy. There are two main areas of speculation:

Ham sodomized or castrated Noah. One infers this from the fact that Noah had no children after the Flood. (On the other hand, he was over 500 years old--whaddya want?) This was a common interpretation by both Jewish rabbinic scholars and early Christian fathers. One conjecture is that Ham used some magic spell to render Noah impotent. Modern scholars view these interpretations as unlikely. Among other things, the penalty for sodomy would have been death by stoning, not a curse on the perpetrator's child.

Ham saw Noah having sex with someone other than Mrs. Noah. This is problematic. The only other women around were Noah's daughters-in-law or granddaughters. This interpretation arises from a technical fine point: Noah had entered the Ark "with his sons, his wife, and his son's wives" (Gen 7:7)--that is, first males, then females, separately. This implies that sex was not permitted on the Ark. Noah was told to exit the Ark (Gen 8:16) "with his wife, his sons, and his son's wives"--that is, by male/female pairs. They're now permitted to have sex, to repopulate the world: "Be fruitful and multiply!" But Noah didn't obey; the family exited the Ark in the same order they came in (Gen 8:18)--males first, then females. Is Noah subverting the order of procreation? Was there some marital rift that interfered with the task of repopulating the world?

Regardless of what Ham's sin was, why does Noah curse Canaan? Why not curse Ham? The text doesn't say, so commentators are free to interpret. Again, it's likely there was an oral tradition not included in the written story.

The most reasonable explanation: This is not about Canaan the individual, but about his (presumed) descendents many generations later. The Israelites viewed the Canaanites as an evil, corrupt people who engage in sexually licentious acts (see Leviticus 18:1ff where "uncovering [sexual] nakedness" is associated with the Canaanites). Modern scholars know that the Canaanite pantheon is among the most sexually violent of pagan myths. So Ham is identified with his son (and descendents) Canaan, destined to be subjugated by the Israelite monarchy in the tenth century BC. Regardless of when the story was written down (1250 BC by Moses or 1000 BC by the editor "J"), it most likely refers to that period, literal enslavement of the nation Canaan by the Israelites.

Other interpretations:

* The phrase "the father of Canaan" has already appeared twice in this brief narrative, so the term might have been abbreviated and the damnation in verse 25 really means "Cursed be [the father of] Canaan."
* Possibly Canaan was a participant with Ham in the offense against Noah, but the details were omitted on grounds of delicacy (and because the full story was known to the earliest readers from oral tradition). There is no textual evidence for or against this interpretation.
* Ham had sex on the Ark, contrary to God's command, and Canaan was conceived from that disobedience. The notion that sex was prohibited on the Ark arises from Gen 7:7 quoted above. Thus, the punishment of Ham was not just for ridiculing Noah, but also for direct disobedience, and the punishment was also visited on the child conceived contrary to God's command.
* We moderns consider that each person is responsible for himself, but the earliest biblical stories (and many cultures today) view the family as a unit. The sin of one is the sin of all, and punishing one is punishing all. So, cursing Ham's son is the same as cursing Ham. Since Ham's offense was lack of respect for or humiliation of his father, there is some nasty irony that the punishment involves lack of respect for or humiliation of his son.
* Some think the Bible was written by multiple authors, so perhaps this story was simply a fusion of divergent traditions. But that argument doesn't get us very far. Even among those who see the Bible as the work of several hands, all ascribe this section to one author (called "J"--see the Staff Report on "Who Wrote the Bible? Part 1"). So we have one story written down by one author/editor, not two or more stories clumsily conflated.

Both Jewish rabbinic scholars and the early Christian fathers (through roughly 400 AD) had a wide range of rich commentary on the nature of Ham's offense and the meaning of the curse. No one concept predominated. Stephen Haynes says, "There was no consensus within the early church [as to] the nature of the transgression, nor the significance, consequence, or longevity of the curse." So the situation stood around 500 AD. We'll take up later views in the next installment.

Interesting asides:

(1) Ham is called the "youngest" son, but this poses difficulties, since the order of the three brothers is given five times as Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which would make Ham the middle son. Gen 10:21 specifically says that Shem is older than Japheth, but whether Ham is really youngest or is middle is unclear. The word for "youngest" also means "smallest," so perhaps the word refers to Ham's physical size or moral stature.

(2) Note on translation: In verse 21, the term "uncovered himself" may also mean "wallowed." In the Hebrew text, the word for "nakedness" alone does not necessarily imply sexuality, it can mean simple nudity. When a phrase such as "uncovered nakedness" is used, there's almost always a sexual implication. In the Noah story, he "uncovers" himself in his tent, but then the brothers "cover his nakedness." Thus, one can argue (a) that he just got naked in his tent; or (b) that he got naked and was engaged in some sort of sexual activity; or (c) that he just got naked but that there was some sort of sexual activity going on later, after Ham entered the tent. As I say, there's lots of interpretations and lots of speculations, far beyond the simple story of the text. I thank Chaim Keller and Zev Steinhardt from the SDMB for their help with the intricacies of biblical Hebrew and for their insights.

(3) The curse itself says that the Canaanites will be subjugated to the Israelites. The name Canaan is itself a word-play in Hebrew on the root k-n-' meaning to be humbled or humiliated.

Sources:

The Curse of Ham, by David M. Goldenberg, Princeton University Press, 2003

Torah Commentary: Genesis, by Nahum M. Sarna, Jewish Publication Society, 1989

Noah's Curse, by Stephan R. Haynes, Oxford University Press, 2002

— Dex

That's funny Cowboy. But nice try.

I've already point out that by the end of the fable Jesus renounces his own words via his actions anyway. He pleads a case for the men who have denied him in total contradiction to the words that had been assigned to him by the authors of these fables.

So these fables are in grave contradiction because they claim that Jesus was "The Word" made flesh, but he didn't even keep his word. Therefore his "word" would be meaningless and without substance anyway.

These fables weren't written very well, as you can see. This is how we can be certain that they are indeed fables. We've recognized similar things with the Greek fables as well. These Hebrew fables aren't any better.

this world does show miracles all the time

miracles happen everyday

Please enlighten us with this contradiction you speak of.

* citation needed.

I already did.

These fables claim that Jesus is the "WORD" made flesh. Where the "WORD" is supposed to be the ultimate supreme WORD of God.

Yet, these fables do not portray a "WORD" that has any consistency.

As you pointed out, these fables proclaim as Jesus' "WORD"; Matthew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Yet, these same fables have Jesus pleading a case for the men who were currently denying him at Calvary; Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

This is a blatant contradiction to the "WORD" that Jesus had previously stated that he would deny those men.

So we can know that these fables are clearly false and cannot be "THE WORD" of any supreme being. We can confidently place them on the shelf beside the Greek fables of Zeus.

Of course this is only one example of contradictions in these fables. These fables are riddled with these kinds of contradictions from beginning to end.

The authors of these fables gave themselves away many times. We've caught the fibbers red-handed. It's clearly nothing more than false folklore. It cannot be "THE WORD" of any almighty God because it's inconsistent and undependable.

No it's not a contradiction. This is another case of Cowboy not knowing what he's saying. Peter denied Jesus three times, but went on to do a great ministry and there is no doubt that he was saved. This sin is not unforgivable. Besides, Matthew 10:32-33 isn't talking about someone who isn't a Christian (like those at Calvary), he was speaking of those who called themselves his followers. Jesus was preparing his followers to understand that hard times would come and they would be tempted to deny him, but that could carry grave consequences.

Cowboy, please research this stuff before you post. At the very least, read the scripture completely in context and use a concordance. You aren't helping the cause with these sorts of mistakes.

There is no mistake, just merely misunderstanding. There is but one judgement. A person has the time from when they make the sin to when judgement comes to repent of that sin. If a person through their life deny's Jesus Christ, then at Judgement asks for forgiveness for doing as such, he will deny this person, because it wouldn't be truly heartfelt. It will be said and or done out of desperation to save their life and to more or less butter Jesus up trying to get points. It can not be seen as an accident, mistake, mishap, or anything like that. With receiving forgiveness of a sin(s) one must first repent from that sin which they are asking forgiveness of when Judgement arrives. So the fact still remains if someone totally denies the lord thy God, Jesus has said he will deny them before the father. But this can all be changed if that certain someone accepts Jesus and repents from their blasphemy before they pass away on Earth. Sorry again if this isn't clear of what I'm trying to explain, any questions or comments please ask and or reply.

I'm going to say it was probably a mistake.

The below *is* an unforgivable sin, but it is only possible to be committed by someone who has seen the Holy Spirit in action. If someone has seen a real miracle or saw Jesus in action and blasphemed those miracles.



You compared this to Matthew 10:33 and there is no similarity between the two sins.

The verse you posted goes exactly along with what I said. Say you deny Jesus today and truly feel that way. That does NOT mean you will absolutely for sure miss out on heaven for this action. I want you to pay real close attention to how this verse is worded and pay attention to these three words "is in danger". In danger, doesn't say it specifically will. But they are in danger of eternal damnation until they seek forgiveness and repent of this action. They are in DANGER of damnation, they are not damned already.

My last post to you on this, because your blind stubbornness and disregard for Christianity really pisses me off.

DANGER in Mark 3:29 is the Greek word "enochos"

Here are the definitions for "enochos"



Do you see the problem with the English translation of Mark 3:29? "in danger of" doesn't convey the certainty that "enochos" conveys.

Are you getting why I said to use a concordance and read the meaning of each word in the original language?

I'm sorry, you seem to have gotten irritated, frustrated, or something of such. I'm truly sorry if I do not see it exactly how you see it. When in reality we do. I'll show why I say this.

Those definitions you posted were all synonyms. They all mean the same thing. I will post the verse with the words adlibbed and it will have the same meaning.

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is under obligation to eternal damnation.
--------

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is worthy of punishment of eternal damnation.
--------

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of the penalty of eternal damnation.

I used three of those different definitions of "enochos" and they all come to the same conclusion. The same meaning. The same result. So please explain exactly what you were getting at with posting the defitions? Did you feel they changed the meaning of it? enochos is basically the same word as consequence of a crime.

People wonder why I will not use anything but the true names.. its easy why..

Ex 20:7

7 "You shall not take the name of Yahweh your Elohim in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
NKJV

guitless i believe is sinless

What does vain really mean..you decide


shav'

OT:7723 shav' (shawv); or shav (shav); from the same as OT:7722 in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain):


KJV - false (-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


I would give it some serious thought about what Yahshua said over and over again..Blessings....Miles

As a parent, I disagree. I dont just 'give' my kids things all the time. They have to learn to be responsible and earn what they have. A Miracle is a 'gift', not something earned. I dont think God would just spread Gifts all the time or else they would no longer be considered 'gifts' but 'entitlements'