Dude disappears into the desert for years with his daughters and comes back with both of them pregnant. I’m not going to lend to much credence to what he says happened.
Dude didn’t exist. Genesis is a collection of myths, not a historical record.
The old testament consists of books that were old legends when they were written down (like Genesis), books that were contemporary fiction (like the story of Iob), books that are poetry (like Song of Solomon) and books that are historical (like the Book of Kings).
Of course, even the historical books need to be taken with a chunk of salt, they have a lot legends, folk tales, miracle stories and other fictional elements mixed into them. But the difference is that the historical books contain real people who for the most part actually existed, while the other types of books in the bible are completely fictional, either expressly (as in the case of Iob) or due to them being legends.
Sadly, there’s a ton of people (both christians and non-christians) who don’t know that and think that everything in the bible was meant as a hard historical record, and then you get stuff like in the OP. (OP went a bit farther, misquoting pretty much everything about the story.)
That’s about as smart as picking up a random book from the library, believing that everything that’s written there is meant as pure fact, and then complaining that a caterpillar doesn’t eat all the different kinds of food that the little caterpillar ate.
The same story says that a bunch of towns people showed up at his door to rape his guests. Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped instead.
For some reason, Lot and his family were considered the only ones worth saving in that city. But not his wife, because she really wanted to be back there. That’s unforgivable.
It’s infuriating to me that so many modern American Christians interpret the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a condemnation of homosexuality, when it was actually intended to be a condemnation of living lavishly and hedonistically while refusing hospitality to strangers, bizarre as it may be. They managed to twist a parable that calls you to help immigrants in need into a cautionary tale about gay sex.
I was taught the latter interpretation and only discovered the intended message after reading the bible myself.
Genesis 18:16-33? Abraham doesn’t plead for Lot, specifically. Lot had settled there after breaking off from Abraham because their herds were too big to support both of them on the same land. He wasn’t a native inhabitant. Abraham pleads for the rest of the city to not be destroyed at all. After going at it a bit, God says that if there were even 10 righteous people in the city, he wouldn’t destroy it, but there aren’t. God then saves Lot and (most of) his family while destroying everyone else in the city.
Lot is kind of a dullard throughout the whole thing.
That’s his story.
Dude disappears into the desert for years with his daughters and comes back with both of them pregnant. I’m not going to lend to much credence to what he says happened.
Dude didn’t exist. Genesis is a collection of myths, not a historical record.
The old testament consists of books that were old legends when they were written down (like Genesis), books that were contemporary fiction (like the story of Iob), books that are poetry (like Song of Solomon) and books that are historical (like the Book of Kings).
Of course, even the historical books need to be taken with a chunk of salt, they have a lot legends, folk tales, miracle stories and other fictional elements mixed into them. But the difference is that the historical books contain real people who for the most part actually existed, while the other types of books in the bible are completely fictional, either expressly (as in the case of Iob) or due to them being legends.
Sadly, there’s a ton of people (both christians and non-christians) who don’t know that and think that everything in the bible was meant as a hard historical record, and then you get stuff like in the OP. (OP went a bit farther, misquoting pretty much everything about the story.)
That’s about as smart as picking up a random book from the library, believing that everything that’s written there is meant as pure fact, and then complaining that a caterpillar doesn’t eat all the different kinds of food that the little caterpillar ate.
The same story says that a bunch of towns people showed up at his door to rape his guests. Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped instead.
For some reason, Lot and his family were considered the only ones worth saving in that city. But not his wife, because she really wanted to be back there. That’s unforgivable.
It’s infuriating to me that so many modern American Christians interpret the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a condemnation of homosexuality, when it was actually intended to be a condemnation of living lavishly and hedonistically while refusing hospitality to strangers, bizarre as it may be. They managed to twist a parable that calls you to help immigrants in need into a cautionary tale about gay sex.
I was taught the latter interpretation and only discovered the intended message after reading the bible myself.
Only because Abraham pleaded with God to save them
Genesis 18:16-33? Abraham doesn’t plead for Lot, specifically. Lot had settled there after breaking off from Abraham because their herds were too big to support both of them on the same land. He wasn’t a native inhabitant. Abraham pleads for the rest of the city to not be destroyed at all. After going at it a bit, God says that if there were even 10 righteous people in the city, he wouldn’t destroy it, but there aren’t. God then saves Lot and (most of) his family while destroying everyone else in the city.
Lot is kind of a dullard throughout the whole thing.
He couldn’t have lied, that’s a sin