The Story of Lot (Sodom & Gomorrah)

Oh, I see what you're saying now. I don't only pull it from the "lack of evidence," I take the story as it is told.

You see, with story telling it's different. Even if there WAS condemnation by god towards the daughters of Lot, it wasn't recorded and therefore was erased from the moral message. I think this is unlikely but if it's true then my point still stands because the author of this story included what they included for a reason. It doesn't matter if something else happen that they aren't telling us about, if it's not part of the story then it's not part of the message.

You can't always apply the same logic to two totally different scenarios and have it work the same.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I don't only pull it from the "lack of evidence," I take the story as it is told.

You see, with story telling it's different. Even if there WAS condemnation by god towards the daughters of Lot, it wasn't recorded and therefore was erased from the moral message. I think this is unlikely but if it's true then my point still stands because the author of this story included what they included for a reason. It doesn't matter if something else happen that they aren't telling us about, if it's not part of the story then it's not part of the message.

You can't always apply the same logic to two totally different scenarios and have it work the same.

The problem with that is that it is editing to meet someone's view of what was right. It invalidates the Bible as a credible source of information, and leaves it as nothing more than a fable based in possible history, that has a moral point.

Which is what I believe it is..

If you believe it's the infallible word of God, then the remote possibility that God would leave out the condemnation of Lot's daughter's actions disappears. If it was a point God wanted to make, he would've done so.

Either way we're off topic. No matter what you believe the Bible is, the story is there and this thread is for the interpretation of that story. We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Which is what I believe it is..

If you believe it's the infallible word of God, then the remote possibility that God would leave out the condemnation of Lot's daughter's actions disappears. If it was a point God wanted to make, he would've done so.

I agree that it is not the infallible word of God. I believe it to be an account of God's dealings with man as well as a history of a group of people. Lot was discussed because he dealt with God's messengers, not because of any point being made.

Originally posted by ElectricKoolAid
Either way we're off topic. No matter what you believe the Bible is, the story is there and this thread is for the interpretation of that story. We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said.

We are not off topic. We are discussing the validity of the method you used in your interpretation, and comparing/contrasting that interpretation with my own. The method of interpretation is integral to interpretation of that story. What the Bible is effects any interpretation made.

"We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said." You are assuming consent based on something "that wasn't mentioned." You cannot base an interpretation on this verse as condemning or condoning the action based "on what WAS said." Although, if the Bible is consistent it does condemn this type of act, and thus it can be more strongly inferred as an act that was condemned than it could be inferred as condoning.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
As more and more sciencist try to prove the Bible wrong, more and more sciencist find no fault in it.

Bro, you don't need to be a scientist to find the plentiful amount of faults it contains. 😉

No, you just need to have a brain.

Originally posted by Regret
I agree that it is not the infallible word of God. I believe it to be an account of God's dealings with man as well as a history of a group of people. Lot was discussed because he dealt with God's messengers, not because of any point being made.

Really, I think you are just looking for a loophole where the bible can still be viewed as a credible source yet doesn't have to take responsibility for the messages conveyed in the stories. I find it no coincidence that everytime they get down to intimate details of a certain person or people there is a moral message to be found. When the bible was arranged I think these stories were kept for a specific reason, and i'll continue to judge the book based on the messages it conveys.

We are not off topic. We are discussing the validity of the method you used in your interpretation, and comparing/contrasting that interpretation with my own. The method of interpretation is integral to interpretation of that story. What the Bible is effects any interpretation made.

"We can't assume anything that wasn't mentioned happen, we can only base our interpretations on what WAS said." You are assuming consent based on something "that wasn't mentioned." You cannot base an interpretation on this verse as condemning or condoning the action based "on what WAS said." Although, if the Bible is consistent it does condemn this type of act, and thus it can be more strongly inferred as an act that was condemned than it could be inferred as condoning.

But by the way, whether or not God condemned Lot's daughters isn't a vital part of the point I was making with my first post. That was just an addition, the part where Lot offers his daughters to be raped by the crowds of men and still receives deliverance from the Lord is quite enough for this story to have one ****ed up moral message.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
As more and more sciencist try to prove the Bible wrong, more and more sciencist find no fault in it.

First, scientists don't try to prove the bible wrong. That is just Christian propaganda.

Second, much of the bible has already been disproved as fact.

For example;

*The Earth has never been cover with water in a great flood. The fossils found on the mountain tops are fossils of living creatures in their environment that lived millions of years ago. The marine environments are fragile and could not have been deposited by a flood with out being destroyed.

*Moses of the OT never existed. The Egyptians where almost fanatical where it came to record keeping, and there is no record of Moses.

*The OT refers to the kingdom of Israel as a great world power, however, records of the Egyptians, the Babylonians and other neighboring nations that were supper powers of the day, do not reflect this opinion. It is more likely that the Israelis were a small unimportant kingdom.

*The Earth is much older then 6,000 years old. The Earth is ~4.6 billion years old.