This is a continuation of my discussion with wmscott from
HERE
I would welcome other input on the historicity and theology of the Sodom account. For example, what was Sodom's sin?
So a basic discussion of the reliabililty of the Sodom episode in Genesis 19.
Meanwhile, from wmscott....
I have already posted on why I think that they had. Lot had no young children, both of his daughters were of marriageable age. As to why he didn't leave, both of this daughters were engaged to local men and his wife clearly didn't want to leave. He was probably faced with the choice of staying or possibly having to leave his family behind in Sodom.
But surely this can apply to other families as well then, and not just Lot’s? Why couldn’t old Abram from number 46 be forced to stay?
As for Lot’s wife not wanting to leave, since when did women have equal rights in the ancient near east?
My argument that there may have been no young children at the time of it's destruction, is speculation on my part, but so is the reverse, we are not told clearly one way or the other.
So my hypothetical question is a valid one if the only objection against it is speculative.
"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men," (1 Corinthians 6:9)
(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."
(Romans 1:27) "and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
I’ll take that as a yes then.
Because you obviously need too. I was referring to the fact that the book existed, which proved your agruemnt false, that there was 'no' evidence of the destruction of Sodom.
But it doesn’t prove my argument false at all. All this proves is that there is a book whose authors *believe* they have evidence., not the same thing as there being any.
Anyway, there are books written by cranks all the time that do not contain the evidence that they think they do. Have you any idea how many books have been written claiming to have evidence of a worldwide Flood, and we all know how well that turkey has been cooked?
Why not summarise the ‘evidence’ for people to examine, it is a discussion board after all, not a book club.
. It has been a while since I read it, but the gist of it was that the destruction occurred just as described in the Bible, there is plenty of geological evidence for it, but they did not find the city sites and the geologic events are believed to have occurred earlier than the biblical date given in the Bible.
You don’t really know anything about archaeology do you?
How on earth is this evidence for the destruction of Sodom? They didn’t find the site and the geologic events occurred earlier than the Bible claims, yet this supports there being a Sodom?
I would say this is pretty strong evidence AGAINST there being a Sodom and how it was destroyed.
Oh, and in archaeology, no theory is ever proven, so even IF a city called Sodom was found and it was destroyed as per biblical text fashion, it doesn’t follow that God was involved or angels or that anything else in the tale is true.
Can't be counted as righteous ether however. Young children in the Bible are sometimes lumped in with their parents, and sometimes they are not.
This is what I am asking you, why is a baby considered wicked? I just want to know why your flavour of Christianity would believe this.
That was no one except for Lot.
So why were his wife and daughters saved?
We are know blaming them for Lot’s disgusting behaviour, so God knew what they would do in the future and allowed them to live yet killed babies who would be bad, bit of a double standards guys old Yahweh isn’t He?
Christianity isn’t an easy faith to justify is it?
Think about it, he offered his daughters to a gang of homosexuals, knowing that their future husbands were in the crowd, and that two angels were behind him in the house.
Their future husbands were homosexuals, how does that work?
Also, he didn't bring his daughters out with him when he stepped out into the night by himself to face the mob, and closed the door behind himself and stood in front of it and blocked the door with his body. He showed that he was willing to risk his own daughters to protect Jehovah's angels, angels which he knew could have destroyed the whole town in a blink of an eye.
As far as Lot knew the guys could have said okay bring the ho’s out.
You don't understand the culture, he never intended any harm to come to his daughters, this was a cultural mind game.
How do you know this?
He couldn't impose on his guests by directly asking them to intervene, and as host he had to protect them. Lot fulfilled both requirements of his culture and succeeded in getting the angels to intervene without asking them to.
Both requirements? You are required to offer your daughter’s up for gang rape instead of offending a stranger? You’re making it up as you go along.
You are confusing righteousness with perfection, righteous people are not perfect and still sin.
But there is no one that is righteous according to my Bibles.
Romans 3:9-11
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one;
And poor Job,
14 "What is man, that he could be pure,
or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?
15 If God places no trust in his holy ones,
if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes,
16 how much less man, who is vile and corrupt,
who drinks up evil like water!
If you bother to read the account, Lot's daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. (Genesis 19:35)
Don’t you just hate when that happens?
"So they repeatedly gave their father wine to drink during that night also; then the younger got up and lay down with him, but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up."
And he didn’t remember that in the morning, so he slept with the other daughter the next night? How believable is that?
Have you ever been that drunk that you cannot remember sleeping with a woman? I think if I was that drunk I wouldn’t be able to!
Maybe Lot was getting a bit old by this point in time, and wasn't that aware of how much he was drinking, and then got date raped by his own daughters.
Date raped, what a classic!
This is good stuff.
If Lot had approved of his daughters family planning efforts, they wouldn't have needed to get him drunk to carry out their nefarious plan.
Here was I thinking that these stories were made up to give the Moabites and the Ammonites a notorious origin.
What seems more plausible to you?
The rest of the post is basically saying that Lot was righteous because he treated his daughter’s pieces of meat.
Oh, and that you can be seen as righteous by God is you ‘date rape’ your dad.
Hey, it is your faith, enjoy.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2