Reed’s first two chapters and then chapter four seek to discredit interpretations that depict or leave the impression that Canaan was guilty and conversely that Noah’s curse was just. These interpretations, he insists, incorrectly allow their bias of a presumed Canaanite guilt to drive their exegesis rather than let their exegesis lead them, which, if they did, he believes would lead them to the opposite conclusion.

Following chapter three where he details the critical-literary methodology by which he will conduct his exegesis, Reed arrives at chapter five, the heart of his scholarly contribution. The “new reading” that he offers is as follows:

• “Noah… defiled ( וַיָּ֥חֶל ) when he planted ( וַיִּטַּ֖ע   )… (v. 20).  His bases for the “defiled” reading are (a) חלל is polysemic and can sometimes mean “defile” or “profane” (b) Noah is a failed new Adam (c) Noah is acting as God when he plants since until v. 20 planting had only been associated with God (Gen 2:8)
• Considering that Noah is a failed Adam, אִ֣ישׁ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה (v. 20) should be interpreted pejoratively as referring to Noah’s brutish state
• Noah’s drunkenness must be viewed in decidedly negative light when one notes the parallelism between the drinking in v. 21 that serves as a source of Noah’s degraded state and the so-called “fall” of Adam and Eve that was brought about by the pair eating the forbidden fruit
• Noah’s nakedness also in v. 21 must be perceived negatively not only because of the self-humiliation it brought to Noah but also if viewed through the lens of Lam 4:21 where being “stripped naked” is a form of punishment
•  The location of Noah’s nakedness, namely, “in his tent” (בְּת֥וֹךְ אָהֳלֹֽה) in v. 21 can carry a negative connotation since the location is tainted by what happened there in the same way that the location where Achan stashed the חֵ֫רֶם in Josh 7: 21 does not sanitize the decision to do so, or that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not any less portentous because it was located in the middle of the garden of Eden (Gen 2:9) or that the cause of Adam’s and Eve’s nakedness was not anything less of an infraction just because the pair were hiding in the middle of the garden (Gen 3:8).
• Ham’s brothers’ action in 9:23 is not necessarily laudable considering (a) they are not the first to cover nakedness in the primeval history (b) their covering of Noah in the aftermath of his disgraced nakedness is as unimpressive as Adam and Eve covering themselves in the aftermath of their nakedness being revealed in Gen 3:7
• Noah knowing what his youngest son had done to him in Gen 9:24 should be understood as (a) ironical since how would he automatically know when God himself had to first subpoena testimony from Adam (Gen 3:11), Eve (Gen 3:13) and Cain (Gen 4:10) (b) similar to the knowledge sought by Adam and Eve with their intention to be like God in Gen 3:4  
• Noah’s curse in Gen 9:25 is unjust because (a) whereas God offers a forewarning or proleptic censure to Adam (Gen 2:17) and Cain (Gen 4:7), Noah’s doesn’t which renders the punishment imposed by Noah warrantless at worst and overblown and impetuous at best (b) there is a discrepancy between who acts (Ham) and who is punished (Canaan)