Bible Contradiction? Was Noah a just and perfect man?

For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Was Noah a just and perfect man?

Here are the answers which the skeptic believes indicate a Bible contradiction:

Yes.

“These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:9)

No, he got drunk and cursed his grandson (and all of his descendants) with slavery because his son saw him drunk and naked.

“Then Noah began [a]farming and planted a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were [b]turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, “Cursed be Canaan; [c]A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.”” (Genesis 9:20-25)

(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

1. When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction.  A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time.  To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
2. One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible.  See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions.  Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do.  But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
3. The skeptic tries to pit Genesis 6:9 as affirming the claim “Noah was a just and perfect man” against Genesis 9:20-25 as affirming “Noah was not a just and perfect man.”
4. Even based upon the skeptics’ misinterpretation of both Genesis 6:9 and Genesis 9:20-25 we see there is not a contradiction: Genesis 6:9 and Genesis 9:20-25 are different time.  Genesis 6:9 is before the flood while Genesis 9:20-25 is after the flood.  So the description of Noah in a positive fashion in Genesis 6:9 while Genesis 9:20-25 presents a negative report about Noah doesn’t contradict when we understand they weren’t happening at the same time.
5. I think the skeptic misinterpreted Genesis 6:9.
   1. The NASB does not say “perfect.”  It says “blameless.”  The Hebrew word is used in Judges 10:13 and translated as “whole” in reference to a whole complete day when the son stood still.  It is not so much a “perfect” day that is the point in Judges 10:13 but a “complete” day.  Likewise the term is often used in the Law to say to present as sacrificice animals that are “without blemish” but I take it here as being “whole” is how they are “without blemish.”  So the verse in Genesis 9:6 I see is referring to the truth that Noah was a wholistic moral believer; every sphere of his life was for God.  One can be this way and not always be moral or perfect.
   2. Genesis 6:9 does call Noah “righteous.”  But I don’t think this is self-righteousness of Moses in view but rather God’s grace is the basis for his righteousness.  The previous verse, Genesis 9:8, states “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”  “Favor” can be translated as grace.  I think here in Genesis 6:8-9 the seed form that later would be developed as God’s grace is why we are declared righteous.  This is further explained later in Genesis with Abraham being “credited” as righteous by God in Genesis 15:6: “Then he believed in the Lord; and He credited it to him as righteousness.”  The word for righteous is the same as found in Genesis 6:9.  But note here in Genesis 15:6 the order: first Abraham believed and then God credited Him as righteous.  In the same way Genesis 6:9 might not be fully developed with the doctrines of grace and salvation but here its enough to see the order of grace from God and then Noah is righteous.  And since this is a righteousness that comes from God then it doesn’t conflict nor contradict with Genesis 9:20-25 with the description of Noah falling short especially since later theology with Genesis and beyond teaches a credited righteousness from God through faith.  A credited righteousness from God can be the case while practically believers do sin.
6. I also think the skeptic misinterpreted Genesis 9:20-25.
   1. There’s already no contradiction as a result of the reasoning in point 5.  But I want to clear a misunderstanding.
   2. Genesis 9:20-25 does record Noah’s sin of being drunk.
   3. However Noah when he awoke was not just merely upset and cursed his future grandson out of drunker anger; rather there’s a prophecy of what will happen in the future with the descendants of his three sons (see the rest of Genesis 9, from Genesis 9:25-27).  Note there’s also a Messianic prophecy in verse 26 where Noah blessed God through the line of Shem, anticipating the Messiah Jesus.  So this prediction about his descendants isn’t just out of anger but charts the course of human history.
   4. While this is prophecy before it happen nevertheless it is after Canaan’s sins would God judge them on the basis of their sins.  This isn’t just a sinful angry outburst by Noah.
7. There is no contradiction here.  Seems the skeptic needs to learn of How to Handle Bible Contradictions.
8. We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity.  The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible.  In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview.  Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”