That is the incident, but what I believe is weird about it is Noah's grown up sons act like and are treated like kids. Also its like a story that was just tagged on to the end of the flood. It seems soooo out of place at the end of the flood myth.
Yep, this is the same observation made by many Bible scholars. Actually, it is the Flood story that seems out of place. The crucial fact is that the name nwch "Noah" is related to the word nchm "comfort". Now the obvious foreshadowing to the name occurs in Genesis 3:17, the curse on Adam, referring to the "toil" and "suffering" in agricultural work and the "sweat on your brow" it brings. Then, in Genesis 5:29, Lamech the father of Noah says when he names him:
"Here is the one who will give us, in the midst of our toil and the laboring of our hands, a consolation derived from the ground that Yahweh cursed."
So there is an obvious backward reference to Genesis 3:17. But the forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which certainly brought no such comfort), but to Noah's discovery of vine-culture, which brought comfort derived from the ground (Genesis 9:20-24). In this vein, also note Proverbs 31:6-7 which recommends "wine for the heart" and declares, "Let them drink and ... remember their misery no more ." The intervening Flood story breaks up the connection between the wine discovery in ch. 9 and the naming of Noah in ch. 5 and thus probably conflates an agricultural hero with the survivor of a cataclysmic Flood.
Moreover, Genesis 9:20-24 introduces Noah in an entirely new character, as not only the discoverer of the vine but the first victim of its effects. Note that v. 20 calls him "Noah the husbandman " which implies the existence of traditions about his work in agriculture. In fact, there is an infamous problem in the position of this episode after the Flood story. In the Flood narrative, Noah's sons are married men who take their wives into the ark. Here, on the contrary, they are represented as minors living in the "tent" with their father; and the conduct of the youngest is conceived almost as an exhibition of juvenile immaturity. The generally accepted explanation, then, is that Genesis 9:20-27 belongs to a stratum of the Yahwist writer (J ) who knew nothing of the Flood. Note that in v. 24 the offender is the youngest son of Noah, and in v. 25 he is named Canaan, while Shem and Japheth are referred to as his brothers. It is true that in v. 22 the misdeed is attributed to "Ham the father of Canaan" but the words appear to harmonize the account with vs. 18-19 (of the Flood account), and the words leave unresolved the problem between v. 24 and v.25. Not only is there a problem with the position of this story after the Flood account, but it interrupts the connection between v. 19, which describe Ham, Shem, and Japheth as the fathers of humankind, and Genesis 10-11 which lay out how this happened. By all appearances, this story seems to be independent of the Flood narrative.
The same could be said regarding the Cainite geneology in Genesis 4, which terminates in the three sons of Lamech. It has been generally noted that this geneology is a doublet of the Sethite geneology in ch. 5 (containing many of the same names in roughly the same order, terminating in the three sons of Noah, the son of Lamech). As the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites (cf. especially Numbers 24:21-22, which refers to the Kenites by the name of their ancestor Cain), Cain's nomadic line did not perish but remained in existence throughout Israelite history (Genesis 15:19; Judges 1:16, 4:11; 1 Samuel 14:6; Jeremiah 35:1-19). Their nomadism and lack of agriculture is related in Genesis 3:12-16, their specialty in metal-working is mentioned in 4:22, as well as their focus on music (4:21). The Cainite geneology in Genesis 4 is evidently from a Kenite source that viewed their ancestor as the founder of human civilization. There was thus no hint of a Flood wiping out human society in the Yahwist account that posits Cain as the ancestor of the Kenite portion of the Judean population.
The anecdote about the Nephilim in ch. 6 also likely knew nothing about the Flood at least in its original form, as the Nephilim were later described as living in the Promised Land in Numbers 13:33 (from the same J source as Genesis 6:4), and the words 'chry-kn "and even afterwards" in 6:4 intrude into the text as a paranthetical gloss tacked on to harmonize with the subsequent reference in Numbers. The story of Nimrod in ch. 10 (also from J) also may relate to the Nephilim anecdote, as it concerns a gbr "mighty one" who was of "renown" (such that a "saying" was quoted in the text about him). The Nimrod story literarily is foreshadowed by 6:4, and this link also ignores the existence of an intervening Flood.
I'll check up one some of the stuff on the Cainite Lamech in the morning, as it relates to the Kenite tribes.