Lot's wife

[Crown_of_Stars]

Do you personally believe Lot’s wife literally turned into a pillar of salt when she looked back? I can’t know, and it’s thought that many of the stories like these are only allegories.
Though something obviously must have happened to her, and if not that she really did turn into salt, then what might it have been? I know none of us can know, I just wondered what some of your thoughts were.

 

[ahs]

I have sometimes wondered if, upon looking back, she stopped just too soon and too long to look behind her, and ended up in a volcanic blast. I have seen pictures of people who were ‘pertrified’ or ‘mumified’ (not sure what the real term is, in this case) from the extreme heat/dryness/ash of volcanic blasts. Images of the wake of the atom bomb also come to mind.
But really, I just don’t know.

 

[fbl9]

I do not think she turned into a pillar of salt.

People don’t turn into salt.

Poor Lot’s wife. She doesn’t even merit a name.
Perhaps she was looking back because she was trying to understand, in horror, why her husband would offer up their virgin daughters to the angry masses.

.

Well Lot did offer protection to the men. Most of us would not take our word that seriously.
Besides it seems like the crowd was not too interested in girls in the first place.

 

[pianistclare]

The lesson is sin th story:

Lot only escaped destruction by leaving all things, and flying immediately to the mountain, whereas his wife, by shewing an affection for the things she had left, and looking back, perished; so those who, in the time of tribulation, forgetting the reward that awaits them in heaven, look back to the pleasures of this world, which the wicked enjoy, are sure to perish. (St. Ambrose) — Greek: Ta opiso epilanthanesthai, tois de emprosthen epekteinesthai. (Philippians iii. 13.)

She didn’t BELIEVE. She thought they had plenty of time, she thought she could save her “things”.

Just as today, many believe that they have plenty of time to get their soul in order.
It might have been a weird fate, but it final, permanent, and deadly.

 

[oldgraymare2]

There are supposed images of her out there on the internet.

Here is one of them that I found:

%between%

 

[oldgraymare2]

Here are some photos of taken of her, where she is supposedly made out of salt.

I have always found this image to be rather fascinating to look at:

alfa-img.com/show/lot-s-wife-pillar-of-salt-location.html

 

[Reuben_J]

Do you personally believe Lot’s wife literally turned into a pillar of salt when she looked back? I can’t know, and it’s thought that many of the stories like these are only allegories.
Though something obviously must have happened to her, and if not that she really did turn into salt, then what might it have been? I know none of us can know, I just wondered what some of your thoughts were.

Well, the Bible seems to tell it happened literally.

The Bible recorded some unusual incidents as indeed they were during unusual times - the parting of the red sea, the pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night which guided the Israelites in the desert and later, Elijah taken up on the cloud in a chariot.

Skeptics nevertheless explain that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by an asteroid, explaining the fire and brimstone in the Bible.

I would say Lot’s wife was turned to a pillar of salt. Miracles like that do happened then.

 

[GEddie]

There are body-sized columns of salt at that end of the Dead Sea, which may have given rise to the narrative.

It’s not necessary to believe that one of them was once her body, however. After all, if this happened to her, what about Lot? They were presumably near each other when this occurred. Simply looking back or not wouldn’t govern what happened bodily.

It’s more likely that she simply refused to leave, or tried to return, perished, and her body never found. The columns of salt in the area then inspired the ginning up of this anecdote. The moral being that ignoring the warning of YHWH is hazardous to one’s continued being.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Crusaderbear]

I’ll go allegory on this one…

For Daddysgirl…very few women are named in the Bible, it was the way things were done back then. Women couldn’t even bear witness to events. Read the story of Jesus appearing to the travellers after the resurrection on their way to emmaus (I think…). It was a man and his wife. He was the only one named!

 

[exnihilo]

I personally believe it literally happened.

The lesson is sin th story:

Lot only escaped destruction by leaving all things, and flying immediately to the mountain, whereas his wife, by shewing an affection for the things she had left, and looking back, perished; so those who, in the time of tribulation, forgetting the reward that awaits them in heaven, look back to the pleasures of this world, which the wicked enjoy, are sure to perish. (St. Ambrose) — Greek: Ta opiso epilanthanesthai, tois de emprosthen epekteinesthai. (Philippians iii. 13.)

She didn’t BELIEVE. She thought they had plenty of time, she thought she could save her “things”.

Just as today, many believe that they have plenty of time to get their soul in order.
It might have been a weird fate, but it final, permanent, and deadly.

It is like Luke 9:62

Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

 

[Peebo]

Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Some Christians interpret in a similar way this verse as regarding the “abomination of desolation” in last days…

 

[GEddie]

Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Some Christians interpret in a similar way this verse as regarding the “abomination of desolation” in last days…

That was the war of AD70 and the abomination of desolation was the Roman eagle raised in Jerusalem.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well Lot did offer protection to the men. Most of us would not take our word that seriously.
Besides it seems like the crowd was not too interested in girls in the first place.

Whether anyone accepted the offer is entirely not the point. No halfway decent man – no halfway decent father – would even fathom such an offer let alone speak it. If he wanted to protect the angels he could have bribed the mob, threatened the mob, prayed, stalled, or offered himself. Instead his sole plan was to throw his daughters to a gang of rapists.

Even more disturbing is that this is all approved by God. In 2 Peter 2:7–8 Lot is called a righteous man. In the Lot story God is literally separating the righteous from the unrighteous. The righteous live and the unrighteous die.

The lesson is sin th story:

Lot only escaped destruction by leaving all things, and flying immediately to the mountain, whereas his wife, by shewing an affection for the things she had left, and looking back, perished; so those who, in the time of tribulation, forgetting the reward that awaits them in heaven, look back to the pleasures of this world, which the wicked enjoy, are sure to perish. (St. Ambrose) — Greek: Ta opiso epilanthanesthai, tois de emprosthen epekteinesthai. (Philippians iii. 13.)

She didn’t BELIEVE. She thought they had plenty of time, she thought she could save her “things”.

If I hear a loud noises, including fiery explosions, then I’m going to turn around out of fear. What Lot’s wife (who I’m going to name Notta) was nothing compared to what Lot himself did. He should have been turned into a pillar of salt and she should have been free from a man who would elect to have their daughters raped. Her sole crime was reacting naturally to utter chaos.

 

[Reuben_J]

Mike from NJ:

If I hear a loud noises, including fiery explosions, then I’m going to turn around out of fear. What Lot’s wife (who I’m going to name Notta) was nothing compared to what Lot himself did. He should have been turned into a pillar of salt and she should have been free from a man who would elect to have their daughters raped. Her sole crime was reacting naturally to utter chaos.

God was going to destroy the city. Protecting the angels to Lot was an act of putting God first. It may seem strange for us today because many do not believe in God and what God says don’t figure much in our lives. To Lot then, it was a situation in desperation.

His wife did not obey God’s word (via the angels notwithstanding) Gen 19:17, thus she was destroyed. His son-in-laws too who thought Lot was joking.

The incident was pretty much for us today like what have been said by the other posters is to obey God or face the consequence. In obeying God, it takes the utmost priority with everything else comes second. Lot offering his daughters instead demonstrated that, however disagreeing we with it in our context.

Nevertheless, the city was destroyed because there were no good men except for Lot.

 

[drac16]

Yes, I take it literally. I don’t see a reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God was going to destroy the city. Protecting the angels to Lot was an act of putting God first. It may seem strange for us today because many do not believe in God and what God says don’t figure much in our lives. To Lot then, it was a situation in desperation.

But as I mentioned there were a number of ways that Lot could have protected the angels without resorting to offering his daughters to a mob of rapists. Lot gave nary a thought to self-sacrifice. If Lot had a duty to protect the angels posing as men, he also had a duty to protect his daughters. What he is said to have done was completely inexcusable, and there is no defense for it.

His wife did not obey God’s word (via the angels notwithstanding) Gen 19:17, thus she was destroyed. His son-in-laws too who thought Lot was joking.

After I left work last night I stopped off at a diner. I sat at a counter to pick up an order to go. I was reading my paper when a busboy dropped a tray of dishes. He only dropped it one foot and nothing broke, but it was LOUD. I was startled and looked up. If someone had told me beforehand not to look I still would have looked, because that’s what we tend to do with loud noises. Lot’s wife seems to have done the same thing.

The incident was pretty much for us today like what have been said by the other posters is to obey God or face the consequence. In obeying God, it takes the utmost priority with everything else comes second. Lot offering his daughters instead demonstrated that, however disagreeing we with it in our context.

Context is not a magic word that wipes away the evil of an event. There is simply no reason that Lot would offer his daughters to undergo one of the worst things that could happen to a person. There is so much more he could have done to protect both the men and the family.

Nevertheless, the city was destroyed because there were no good men except for Lot.

Lot was not a good man. What he thought of and what he did shows he was a sick, sick man. God may call him good and rigtherous, but most people (myself included) have much better standards.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

At least some people are finally realizing there is no reason to believe that Mary M–basically the person who instigated the religion–was a prostitute

I’m fine with her being a prostitute. I don’t think it makes her a lesser woman. I’m not saying you said this, I’m just saying to anyone who might think that of her. Somehow, I see her hardness as making her stronger. I don’t even know what I mean, really, I just see it that way personally. It makes her more of a “sister” to other women of that time who might have been considered “outcasts” and whores.

 

[Reuben_J]

But as I mentioned there were a number of ways that Lot could have protected the angels without resorting to offering his daughters to a mob of rapists. Lot gave nary a thought to self-sacrifice. If Lot had a duty to protect the angels posing as men, he also had a duty to protect his daughters. What he is said to have done was completely inexcusable, and there is no defense for it.

After I left work last night I stopped off at a diner. I sat at a counter to pick up an order to go. I was reading my paper when a busboy dropped a tray of dishes. He only dropped it one foot and nothing broke, but it was LOUD. I was startled and looked up. If someone had told me beforehand not to look I still would have looked, because that’s what we tend to do with loud noises. Lot’s wife seems to have done the same thing.

Context is not a magic word that wipes away the evil of an event. There is simply no reason that Lot would offer his daughters to undergo one of the worst things that could happen to a person. There is so much more he could have done to protect both the men and the family.

Lot was not a good man. What he thought of and what he did shows he was a sick, sick man. God may call him good and rigtherous, but most people (myself included) have much better standards.

Amazing how this talk quickly shift away from the Bible.

Of course context matters. If we talk about the Bible then its content is relevant. We can talk about other book like the Godfather, and we would discuss about its content, not what we want but what was written, how and why.

You know, I can understand why you said what you said, and may agree with you, but here, sorry, you just fail your Bible test.

Just to summarise - sins were committed in Sodom and Gomorrah and God wanted to destroy the cities unless there were good men. The context here - good men were those who obeyed God and did not sin. Lot fits that description.

Worthwhile noted is the daughters who were supposed to be sacrificed to appease the marauding homosexual men were saved, and the rest perished.

This event in the Bible was very important in the context of Jesus message in the NT - do not look back in following him, do not bury your fathers even. And for the sake of Jesus, everyone has to account for her or himself.

 

[rabbitdonkey]

But as I mentioned there were a number of ways that Lot could have protected the angels without resorting to offering his daughters to a mob of rapists. Lot gave nary a thought to self-sacrifice. If Lot had a duty to protect the angels posing as men, he also had a duty to protect his daughters. What he is said to have done was completely inexcusable, and there is no defense for it.

After I left work last night I stopped off at a diner. I sat at a counter to pick up an order to go. I was reading my paper when a busboy dropped a tray of dishes. He only dropped it one foot and nothing broke, but it was LOUD. I was startled and looked up. If someone had told me beforehand not to look I still would have looked, because that’s what we tend to do with loud noises. Lot’s wife seems to have done the same thing.

Context is not a magic word that wipes away the evil of an event. There is simply no reason that Lot would offer his daughters to undergo one of the worst things that could happen to a person. There is so much more he could have done to protect both the men and the family.

Lot was not a good man. What he thought of and what he did shows he was a sick, sick man. God may call him good and rigtherous, but most people (myself included) have much better standards.

he is called a righteous man but that doesnt mean every action he did was right

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Amazing how this talk quickly shift away from the Bible.

What specifically are you claiming I said that is trying to shift the conversation away from what the Bible says? I’m specifically citing it and not turning a blind eye to what it says. I’m also not adding to scripture as some defenders of Lot do.

Of course context matters. If we talk about the Bible then its content is relevant. We can talk about other book like the Godfather, and we would discuss about its content, not what we want but what was written, how and why.

You know, I can understand why you said what you said, and may agree with you, but here, sorry, you just fail your Bible test.

I pass it with flying colors. It helps that when the Bible says X I don’t savage the English language to make it say “not X”.

Just to summarise - sins were committed in Sodom and Gomorrah and God wanted to destroy the cities unless there were good men. The context here - good men were those who obeyed God and did not sin. Lot fits that description.

So that means offering up one’s innocent daughters to gangrapists (instead of trying to protect both the men and the daughters) is not a sin. That speaks very poorly of God.

Worthwhile noted is the daughters who were supposed to be sacrificed to appease the marauding homosexual men were saved,

The fact that a crime or evil act was unsuccessful doesn’t negate the intent of the person who committed it. Just because his daughters weren’t raped doesn’t mean that Lot hadn’t committed one of the most evil things a father could ever do. It doesn’t negate that God looks upon all this and sees nothing wrong with it.

and the rest perished.

That rest includes Lot’s wife, who didn’t try to get her daughters raped, but had the audacity to look back while running for her life escaping a fireballed city.

This event in the Bible was very important in the context of Jesus message in the NT - do not look back in following him, do not bury your fathers even. And for the sake of Jesus, everyone has to account for her or himself.

What happened to Lot’s wife (Notta) and what didn’t happen to Lot was a mockery of what true accountability is.