Was it wrong for Lot to offer his daughters to the wicked men in Sodom?

[Abba]

Thats a mistranslation. Ask any Rabi. (They know hebrew better than you is my guess)
the correct translation is: And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is an abomination.
hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus1822.htm

You are correct it is a mistranslation by the Rabbi you are citing. He is twisting and turning and not using the correct text to translate and finally does a little adjustment so his translation does not look so ‘awkward’. I am neither a linguist nor a scientist. In both these areas of study when it gets over my pay grade I rely on the professionals and use my logical ability and so on to evaluate and make the best decision possible on who is correct and who is wrong.

In this matter, I consider the fact that historically Jews and Christians alike have translated this text as I quoted above. Now, I don’t know how much adjustment has been done to the modern Hebrew grammar to adapt it to such a reading, but I have to go with the scholars who are in unison with the translation as I cited it above. A lot of modern translation is being offered anew and even revolutionary understanding of even Plato to sell books or promote ideas (e.g. homosexuality).

I have a small Judaic library and I have checked for the citations of Letivicus 18:22 and the translation offered is the same as what I have cited above. I will note, that I do not know Hebrew but the images from what I have seen compared to what the Rabbi you link is using, is different.

It is not only in the Jewish books that my translation is provided but also in the Oxford English Scholarly Bible which is a translation from the original text. This Bible was not put together over night but it took decades and panels etc… Also, the Jerusalem Bible is a direct translation from the original texts and so is the Orthodox Bible. Now, I would have to believe that all these separate organizations and throughout history and all the Fathers of the Church were wrong with their translation because this Rabbi you quote is promoting his translation on a website. I have not searched to find out his position on homosexuality.

In the Torah book I when discussing Leviticus 18:20 it even brings up Leviticus 20:13 The owner of hoperemains.eb.com will have to offer his own translation of Leviticus 20:13 as well.

Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

---

That said, Lot did not only have Leviticus 18:20 to guide him; it was from the beginning that God created mankind male and female and commanded them to multiply. Christian anthropological understand is that male and female compliment each and were made for each other " … a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24). Sexual intercourse with animals or the same sex is disordered.

Lot knew this and also that it is an abomination to God to spill the seed. Homosexual intercourse is a spilling of the seed. So, no, Lot did not have the moral option to offer himself to the men who wanted to have sexual intercourse with the angels.

 

[Lokadottir]

That said, Lot did not only have Leviticus 18:20 to guide him; it was from the beginning that God created mankind male and female and commanded them to multiply. Christian anthropological understand is that male and female compliment each and were made for each other " … a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24). Sexual intercourse with animals or the same sex is disordered.

Lot knew this and also that it is an abomination to God to spill the seed. Homosexual intercourse is a spilling of the seed. So, no, Lot did not have the moral option to offer himself to the men who wanted to have sexual intercourse with the angels.

Leviticus was after Moses? This isn’t even supposed to be about pegging! Its about throwing his daughters out to be raped!

 

[Lokadottir]

You are correct it is a mistranslation by the Rabbi you are citing. He is twisting and turning and not using the correct text to translate and finally does a little adjustment so his translation does not look so ‘awkward’. I am neither a linguist nor a scientist. In both these areas of study when it gets over my pay grade I rely on the professionals and use my logical ability and so on to evaluate and make the best decision possible on who is correct and who is wrong.

Did you actually read the whole thing? Especially the end bit? I also said ANY Rabi. Not THIS Rabi.

 

[freeRadical]

Did you actually read the whole thing? Especially the end bit? I also said ANY Rabi. Not THIS Rabi.

Apparently not the Rabbis at the local temple in my city. They do not agree with the translation that your Rabbi gives.

 

[Thorns]

What I’m saying is God not doing anything is a bit like approval considering how vocal he usually is about wrong things.

God was already vocal about it, why would He need to be redundant? Lot had hang ups, but where he excelled was trusting in God, which no one else in the two cities even considered. That is why God spared him, not because he approved of his immorality.

Abraham, Moses, the Apostles, Christians today, etc were/are all imperfect. Nobody is claiming they were. The fact is, God forgives those who strive to overcome their weaknesses. Stating that God encourages sin because He forgives imperfect sinners is a misinterpretation and a sign of not reading things in their proper context.

 

[Thorns]

people said it was against nature only 50-100 years ago! and that idea is more clearly stated in the bible than a stance against homosexuality!

“People” said it, but it was never true. Homosexual sex cannot produce life, that is fact, despite what “people” say.

Bad analogy.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No, the Bible never says that God approved it, or that God “said that it was good.” Where do you get that?

God was literally on a quest to find all of the good people in town and rained fire on everybody else. God sees good in askting to have one’s daughters raped, something I hope everyone today doesn’t see as good.

I am guessing the difference between him and the others in Sodom and Gomorroah, was that he believed in God and loved Him, despite all of his sins and imperfections.

Once saved, always saved? Man’s salvation is through faith alone?

 

[TK421]

I tend to view the passage as an immense example of reverence & love for God. Lot - recognizing the power of God - was willing to put his own two daughters before the crowd before handing over his angelic hosts to them. I would compare it to when Jacob went to sacrifice Isaac.

This is, however, not a definitive explanation, and I suspect would be unpopular with most contemporary sensibilities. Our culture is highly short-term consequentialist in its thinking, so the idea of putting one’s children in jeopardy is an automatic irrevocable red card. In fairness, the fact that what Lot did was simply wrong is not off the table, but it’s not something I personally find convincing.

What should also be considered is that Lot’s daughters may not have been liken to Lot’s rules as the master of the house either way. The city was enormously promiscuous and Lot might have been handing his young daughters over since they wanted to be a part of the city either way. Their later conduct with Lot in the mountains reveals some pretty shoddy character when they went to 3rd base.

It also may be, in the society of those cities, Lot was the best to work with, even though he himself was pretty messed up compared to the standards of a well-catechized, well-raised, well-fed, orthodox family. Personally, I favor the first explanation as I think it harmonizes best.

 

[Thorns]

Once saved, always saved? Man’s salvation is through faith alone?

In other words, Lot was not content with his sins. He acknowledged that he was sinful and trusted God and loved Him. That is where God’s forgiveness comes in. It is a starting point.

 

[mikekle]

So you’d give Joseph Fritzl a free pass? And which “year” are we talking about, 1900 B.C.? There were plenty of worse fathers out there at that time, who practiced child sacrifice.

This is a willful misrepresentation of the passage; the act is initiated by Lot’s daughters, and he is under the influence of alcohol.

Yes, but if this happened in todays world, that would be no excuse and the police would be out to crucify the guy! The courts would definitely try to send him to prison for a long time too…no matter what truly happened, this shows how messed up our modern times really are imo!!

I dont think God cares about what is popular or common regarding modern day society versus ancient times. He does not ever change, so I think his views would stay the same, its only us that changes.

 

[Kamaduck]

I tend to view the passage as an immense example of reverence & love for God. Lot - recognizing the power of God - was willing to put his own two daughters before the crowd before handing over his angelic hosts to them. I would compare it to when Jacob went to sacrifice Isaac.

This is, however, not a definitive explanation, and I suspect would be unpopular with most contemporary sensibilities. Our culture is highly short-term consequentialist in its thinking, so the idea of putting one’s children in jeopardy is an automatic irrevocable red card. In fairness, the fact that what Lot did was simply wrong is not off the table, but it’s not something I personally find convincing.

What should also be considered is that Lot’s daughters may not have been liken to Lot’s rules as the master of the house either way. The city was enormously promiscuous and Lot might have been handing his young daughters over since they wanted to be a part of the city either way. Their later conduct with Lot in the mountains reveals some pretty shoddy character when they went to 3rd base.

It also may be, in the society of those cities, Lot was the best to work with, even though he himself was pretty messed up compared to the standards of a well-catechized, well-raised, well-fed, orthodox family. Personally, I favor the first explanation as I think it harmonizes best.

The third explanation doesn’t make sense, since only Lot’s wife looked back. The daughters apparently weren’t very moral people, but I don’t think they wanted to stay in Sodom. They left without looking back, even though their husbands were still in the city.

I could buy any of the other explanations, though. It was a really bad situation, and I’m not really sure what Lot could have done to keep the men outside away from everyone inside, especially his guests. I guess he could have offered himself, but that seems like a pretty bad solution, too. Since he never actually pushed his daughters out the door, I suppose we don’t know that he wasn’t just stalling for time.

 

[Robertanthony]

Lot was a righteous man, so he wasn’t going to offer himself to spare his guests! As a favour to his guests, he selflessly offered his daughters aka his property for the mob to rape, sodomize, brutalize and possibly kill . Translation: he’s a dream dad. Again, a righteous man. If these guests were indeed angels, spirits, why did he have to worry about keeping their sexual integrity intact when angels are sexless? Lot as a good father offers his daughters to a crowd of degenerates, God is well-pleased, Lot’s wife turns around to see what’s going on, she is turned into sodium chloride. Lot was a righteous man, perhaps a man after God’s own heart, yet he agreed, under the influence of alcohol, to have sex with his daughters, who, are we told, initiated the sex! I mean how can you preserve the fire of your manhood while you’re so inebriated that getting it on with your daughter sounds like a good idea? If God chastized Lot’s wife for looking back at the firecrackers, I can’t imagine the punishment for sex with your own daughters. I mean Lot must have been struck down on the spot…What does all of this say about a “perfect” God?

 

[Lokadottir]

lot was a righteous man, so he wasn’t going to offer himself to spare his guests! As a favour to his guests, he selflessly offered his daughters aka his property for the mob to rape, sodomize, brutalize and possibly kill . Translation: He’s a dream dad. Again, a righteous man. If these guests were indeed angels, spirits, why did he have to worry about keeping their sexual integrity intact when angels are sexless? Lot as a good father offers his daughters to a crowd of degenerates, god is well-pleased, lot’s wife turns around to see what’s going on, she is turned into sodium chloride. Lot was a righteous man, perhaps a man after god’s own heart, yet he agreed, under the influence of alcohol, to have sex with his daughters, who, are we told, initiated the sex! I mean how can you preserve the fire of your manhood while you’re so inebriated that getting it on with your daughter sounds like a good idea? If god chastized lot’s wife for looking back at the firecrackers, i can’t imagine the punishment for sex with your own daughters. I mean lot must have been struck down on the spot…what does all of this say about a “perfect” god?

^^^^^^thiiiiiiis!!!

 

[SighGuy]

Mike from NJ – you inexplicably claim “The Bible says that God approved it.”

Yet there is literally no verse in the Bible in which God approves of Lot’s actions. The Bible is silent on that… but only in an explicit sense.

The Bible does call Lot righteous. It doesn’t mean he’s never sinned. Abraham lied twice and he was called righteous and friend of God. Because righteousness is not about perfection, but about trust in God, even in our weakness and sin. Real trust in God, not a veneer of trust as we go on sinning, but a trust that seeks to perfect ourselves in God despite our weaknesses.

You cherry-pick to make your points look valid. The Bible is a book of criticism of the sort of action that Lot took, and yet because it is not explicit in every single circumstance you point that out as though it were contrary to the Bible as a whole. It’s not.

The point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, once again, about faith in God. Lot, though weak, had faith in God. His wife looking back is indicative of her choice to not be reformed in God, but to look back on the world longingly. So she died. So too did Sodom and Gomorrah perish, because God was no where in their hearts. God was in Lot’s heart, even though he was not perfect, and so Lot was spared.

 

[Robertanthony]

Mike from NJ – you inexplicably claim “The Bible says that God approved it.”

Yet there is literally no verse in the Bible in which God approves of Lot’s actions. The Bible is silent on that… but only in an explicit sense.

The Bible does call Lot righteous. It doesn’t mean he’s never sinned. Abraham lied twice and he was called righteous and friend of God. Because righteousness is not about perfection, but about trust in God, even in our weakness and sin. Real trust in God, not a veneer of trust as we go on sinning, but a trust that seeks to perfect ourselves in God despite our weaknesses.

You cherry-pick to make your points look valid. The Bible is a book of criticism of the sort of action that Lot took, and yet because it is not explicit in every single circumstance you point that out as though it were contrary to the Bible as a whole. It’s not.

The point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, once again, about faith in God. Lot, though weak, had faith in God. His wife looking back is indicative of her choice to not be reformed in God, but to look back on the world longingly. So she died. So too did Sodom and Gomorrah perish, because God was no where in their hearts. God was in Lot’s heart, even though he was not perfect, and so Lot was spared.

If I walk quietly and hear a loud “boom”, if I turn around to see what happened, would you say I looked back “longingly”. Unless the passage in the OT makes it abundantly clear, i think you’re pulling stuff out of a hat.

 

[SighGuy]

Robert,

You make a very good point. It’s something that I once struggled with, also.

Here’s the thing: you invest your belief into the Bible. You see it as a coherent thing, pointing towards something greater. Suddenly, you come across something that is not defined. In one case, it’s Lot’s actions. In another, it’s his wife’s. In neither case does the Bible condemn or exonerate either of them. Actions simply occur. We’re left to figure out the rest of the puzzle.

But it’s like this: if we’ve got the rest of the puzzle done, and we’re just missing a piece or two, we can tell what the piece must look like by the surrounding pieces it must connect into. So we have (at least) two choices: her action was purely natural inquisitiveness that she was punished for, or her action had symbolism attached to it. Considering the nature of Genesis which is rich in both myth and story-telling, we have reason to believe it was not a recording of a random action that she made. Rather, that it had a symbolic meaning.

Furthermore, considering the overall message of the Bible, we can also arrive at this conclusion.

It’s either go against everything we believe the Bible teaches and wind up with an inexplicable account of random violence, or go with an interpretation that flows with the Bible and continues to create a coherent picture.

In consideration of this, it appears to me more logical to choose the choice that creates a coherent picture, rather than one that creates disharmony.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I walk quietly and hear a loud “boom”, if I turn around to see what happened, would you say I looked back “longingly”. Unless the passage in the OT makes it abundantly clear, i think you’re pulling stuff out of a hat.

So do you think all religion is pulling a rabbit out of a hat?

If so, we know what to think of your sarcasm, don’t we?

 

[Robertanthony]

So do you think all religion is pulling a rabbit out of a hat?

If so, we know what to think of your sarcasm, don’t we?

Having been brought up in religion, immersed would be a better term, having been around many, many believers, both lay and consecrated, I got to see what God/religion was about. But back to the OT, isn’t there a story about a man instructed to carry the arch a certain way, and he was struck dead because it wasn’t exactly how God wanted it? Lot’s wife disobeyed God. That’s a crime of lèse-majesté, Lot’s incestuous relation was an honest misstep in the life of an otherwise righteous man. God’s “perfect” justice in all its splendor! But since everything is about God, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Having been brought up in religion, immersed would be a better term, having been around many, many believers, both lay and consecrated, I got to see what God/religion was about. But back to the OT, isn’t there a story about a man instructed to carry the arch a certain way, and he was struck dead because it wasn’t exactly how God wanted it? Lot’s wife disobeyed God. That’s a crime of lèse-majesté, Lot’s incestuous relation was an honest misstep in the life of an otherwise righteous man. God’s “perfect” justice in all its splendor! But since everything is about God, it makes perfect sense.

Well, we’ll pray for you. Maybe as you get older things will make a little more sense. I know that back in the dark ages of the 70s when I was young, and my waist was thin and my hair was thick instead of vice versa, I likewise saw that just about every ‘believer’ was a sad, sad, sinner, the Bible was full of inconsistencies, and God seemed like an old Kill joy and definitely anti- woman. . .but somehow over the last 35 years or so believers have been just as sinful, but. . . gee, they keep TRYING to get better instead of just relaxing in their sinfulness and demanding sin get accepted. . . and those inconsistencies in the Bible whose explanations I pish-toshed away, well, the more I thought, the more logical the explanations for them seemed. . .and God started being much more father-like and loving and incredibly pro-woman --and pro-man. . . Funny, isn’t it?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

SighGuy, you said that the Bible doesn’t say that God approved of Lot’s actions and that I’m cherry-picking my points. The whole point of the story is to show that unlike the people of Sodom, Lot was a righteous man. God separated the people of Sodom into two categories. He might as well have put up an amusement park sign that said “You must be this wicked to get annihilated by fire from the sky.”

I didn’t say that righteousness means having never sinned, but it does mean the person has a good heart and is not wicked. To offer up your daughters to gangrapists and literally tell them that they can do “whatever they wish with them” is wickedness. It is evil to its very core. It is as wicked as the men who were outside Lot’s home because Lot had a moral obligation to protect his children. No good person would ever even fathom such an idea as to use his children as rape-bait. If that doesn’t fall well within the scope of unrighteousness then I don’t know what else to say.

The point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, once again, about faith in God. Lot, though weak, had faith in God. His wife looking back is indicative of her choice to not be reformed in God, but to look back on the world longingly. So she died. So too did Sodom and Gomorrah perish, because God was no where in their hearts. God was in Lot’s heart, even though he was not perfect, and so Lot was spared.

That’s why I asked before if this means once saved, always saved; and if salvation comes by faith alone. Thorns replied back briefly, but I don’t know if he caught on to what I was implying. These concepts are quite protestant in nature. The idea that just because Lot had faith he was allowed to do something so vile speaks poorly of your god, especially considering what little Lot’s wife did and her punishment was severe based solely on her beliefs.

Robert,

You make a very good point. It’s something that I once struggled with, also.

Here’s the thing: you invest your belief into the Bible. You see it as a coherent thing, pointing towards something greater. Suddenly, you come across something that is not defined. In one case, it’s Lot’s actions. In another, it’s his wife’s. In neither case does the Bible condemn or exonerate either of them. Actions simply occur. We’re left to figure out the rest of the puzzle.

As I noted above, there’s no puzzle. God sees no wrong and/or approves with Lot pimping out his daughters to an unruly mob.

But it’s like this: if we’ve got the rest of the puzzle done, and we’re just missing a piece or two, we can tell what the piece must look like by the surrounding pieces it must connect into. So we have (at least) two choices: her action was purely natural inquisitiveness that she was punished for, or her action had symbolism attached to it. Considering the nature of Genesis which is rich in both myth and story-telling, we have reason to believe it was not a recording of a random action that she made. Rather, that it had a symbolic meaning.

There’s your problem. You’re assuming that you have just one puzzle and so you assume they all must fit together. Take the stories of Zeus. It’s hard to paint a coherent picture as sometimes he’s kind and helps humanity and sometimes he’s petty and cruel for no reason. It’s like Yahweh and how sometimes he’s nice and other times he takes everything away from a man because he got tempted into a wager by Satan.

This is what it’s all about, you and people like you are so committed to this being a single puzzle that you’ll pull out the sledgehammer and ignore all the places where the lines don’t match. In order for it to be one puzzle it means justifying the unjustifiable. It means calling rape not rape and evil not evil.

In consideration of this, it appears to me more logical to choose the choice that creates a coherent picture, rather than one that creates disharmony.

The disharmony is there because the Bible by its nature is not harmonious. Others will disagree, but to me the most logical choice is to recognize that.