Psychological Questions about People in the Bible

[Giuliano]

Ever wonder why people did some things in the Bible? I have my own opinion about how Abraham handled the situation with Lot; but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Feel free to ask questions about other people too. My question about Abraham comes from this passage:

Genesis 13: 5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.
7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

At first glance you might suppose that they couldn't have an arrangement where they lived close to each other while their herds were further apart. Is that true? Apparently not since Lot wound up living in the city of Sodom. What sort of farmer lives in the city? That tells me he did fine living in the city while his herds and flocks were in the plain of Jordan. So why couldn't he have lived with Abraham while his herds and flocks were in the plain of Jordan?

So my question is why didn't Abraham suggest a different solution? It almost seems as if he knew it would be better if he and Lot parted ways. It is fairly clear, isn't it, that it was Lot's herdmen who started the fights and Lot didn't order them to stop? So what was it about Lot that made Abraham suggest parting ways?

Would you tell one of your closest relatives, "Sorry we can't live close to each other because we're too rich." You might -- but what kind of relative would you say that to?

 

[Giuliano]

I guess no one is that much interested in what kind of person Lot was, but I find it fascinating.

Notice that Genesis tells us the strife was between the servants of Abraham and those of Lot; but we are told others were also in the same area. There are some Jewish stories about this. It's said that Lot's servants pastured their animals in land that belonged to the Canaanites and Perizzites, causing strife there as well. Abraham had tried to get Lot to tell them to stop; but Lot's servants took an arrogant view. They said God had given all the land to Abraham and so it was Lot's too since Abraham had no heir and Lot would inherit it all someday. Lot did not discourage this attitude, it seems. Of course, it would be "right" if Lot did inherit if Abraham died without a son; but it shows how Lot could be "right" while having selfish and unloving motives, concerned more with possessions than family peace.

A later passage tells us what kind of neighbor Abraham was to the other people in the area when there was a dispute over a well. He brought it up with Ahimelech; and the two of them solved the problem. Abraham also showed his generous side making a present of seven ewe lambs.
This shows that Abraham did try to solve problems with people whenever he thought it was possible.

Genesis 21:22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest:
23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.
24 And Abraham said, I will swear.
25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away.
26 And Abimelech said, I wot not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to day.
27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant.
28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves.
29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves?
30 And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.
31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

What a contrast in character! While God had promised all that land to him, Abraham did not act as if he already owned it. He tried to get along peacefully with the other people; and he also appealed to their better side when things went wrong. It worked with Abimelech. He hadn't known his servants had taken the well that Abraham had dug. He corrected it when Abraham brought it up. Both of them wanted to behave honorably.

Notice the contrast between Abimelech and Lot too. When Lot's servants caused problems, he didn't correct them. When Abimelech's did, he corrected them when he found out.

That brings me back to why Abraham didn't ask Lot to try to solve the problems of strife between their servants. I think he knew Lot would already have solved the problem if he was interested. Lot looked at all the land as his anyway, and eventually he'd inherit everything Abraham owned. Why ask his servants to avoid causing strife? Let them do what they want as long as it worked to Lot's advantage.

We see this same principle at work in governments where a President or king is not actively doing wrong himself, but he allows his servants to do wrong when it benefits them and him. You may be wasting your time if you know someone yourself who acts like this. If you bring up a problem, he says, "I didn't do anything wrong." Think about Nixon. Did he know about the break-in at the Watergate? Did he help plan it? I don't know. I don't think it was ever proved he knew about it beforehand. Perhaps he was "innocent" in that way; but the point really is that the people who worked for him figured it was okay if they did it. In their minds, it may have been better for Nixon not to know since if they got caught, he couldn't get blamed.

I doubt Abraham and Lot could have solved the problem of strife by getting Lot to discipline his servants. I think Abraham was clever enough to know it too. He knew Lot was guided by greed in large part, so he set him up a situation where Lot would do what Abraham expected. Give him a choice between the land on the left and the land on the right, and Lot would pick the land that looked the best. The problem was solved because Abraham understood how Lot's mind worked and could predict what choice he'd make.

It reminds me a little of the story of the Prodigal Son where the son wanted his inheritance immediately and the father gave him it to him. What's the point of arguing with someone with that attitude?

I think there is a psychological lesson in this for us. There are times when we know people, whether friends or family, who want things a certain way; and even if we know what they want isn't the best thing for them, we're wasting out time by trying to talk them out of it. Sometimes the best thing to do is let them have what they want. When things go wrong, they'll learn. Some people learn only the hard way. We may not enjoy seeing them learn the hard way, but sometimes it's the only way they will learn.

 

[Truth]

Well! let us go back one chapter?
Genesis 12:1-2
Now the LORD Had Said to Abram!
Get Out of Your Country, From Your [Family]! And from Your [Fathers] house!
to a Land that I will show [YOU]

2- I Will Make [YOU] a Great Nation;
I Will Bless [YOU]! and Make [Your] name Great, And [You] Shall be a Blessing!!

Maybe it was not in Gods plan to have Lot, to sojourn with Abram?
Even after Abraham delivered Lot from captivity, and the destruction of Sodom, where did Lot end up?
God Chose Abram, not his whole famdamly! LOL
God is the Orchestrater, Lot was most likely a city boy anyways!

 

[Giuliano]

Well! let us go back one chapter?
Genesis 12:1-2
Now the LORD Had Said to Abram!
Get Out of Your Country, From Your [Family]! And from Your [Fathers] house!
to a Land that I will show [YOU]

2- I Will Make [YOU] a Great Nation;
I Will Bless [YOU]! and Make [Your] name Great, And [You] Shall be a Blessing!!

Maybe it was not in Gods plan to have Lot, to sojourn with Abram?
Even after Abraham delivered Lot from captivity, and the destruction of Sodom, where did Lot end up?
God Chose Abram, not his whole famdamly! LOL
God is the Orchestrater, Lot was most likely a city boy anyways!

That is a longer story, one maybe we should discuss. I think God did have a plan that included Lot; but it took time to unfold. Perhaps it's still unfolding. From the very beginning, God had a plan for all humanity. Abraham's seed was blessed, yes; but all mankind was also be blessed by it. So the plan of salvation included every "nation" including Sodom. If everyone in Sodom had been wiped out, that "tribe" would not have survived. God's plan would have been defeated.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

I believe God's plan for Lot was interwoven with His plan for Sodom. Lot had married a woman from Sodom, so Lot's two daughters preserved that seed of the tribe of Sodom, and they had two children.

Genesis 19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

The offspring of the older daughter got "redeemed" first when Ruth converted and married into the Messianic line. The offspring of the younger daughter got "grafted on" a little later when Solomon married a woman from the tribe of Ammon.

1 Kings 14:21 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

So we see Lot became an ancestor of the Messianic line of kings twice. It just took time.

 

[DNB]

I guess no one is that much interested in what kind of person Lot was, but I find it fascinating.

Of course, it would be "right" if Lot did inherit if Abraham died without a son; but it shows how Lot could be "right" while having selfish and unloving motives, concerned more with possessions than family peace.

Notice the contrast between Abimelech and Lot too. When Lot's servants caused problems, he didn't correct them. When Abimelech's did, he corrected them when he found out.

That brings me back to why Abraham didn't ask Lot to try to solve the problems of strife between their servants. I think he knew Lot would already have solved the problem if he was interested. Lot looked at all the land as his anyway, and eventually he'd inherit everything Abraham owned. Why ask his servants to avoid causing strife? Let them do what they want as long as it worked to Lot's advantage.

I doubt Abraham and Lot could have solved the problem of strife by getting Lot to discipline his servants. I think Abraham was clever enough to know it too. He knew Lot was guided by greed in large part, so he set him up a situation where Lot would do what Abraham expected. Give him a choice between the land on the left and the land on the right, and Lot would pick the land that looked the best. The problem was solved because Abraham understood how Lot's mind worked and could predict what choice he'd make.

You're out of your senses! You've completely speculated on Lot's motives, and then carried on with a character study about him. And this, while leaving out the most explicit and definitive remark about Lot within the Bible. God saved him from Sodom because he was righteous!

Abraham pleaded with God several times, that if he was able to find at least 10 righteous men in Sodom, would he spare the entire city. God said that, hypothetically, that he would. Outside of the specific parameters of the request, God's reaction was written in scripture.

Genesis 19:29 - So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

 

[Giuliano]

You're out of your senses! You've completely speculated on Lot's motives, and then carried on with a character study about him. And this, while leaving out the most explicit and definitive remark about Lot within the Bible. God saved him from Sodom because he was righteous!

Abraham pleaded with God several times, that if he was able to find at least 10 righteous men in Sodom, would he spare the entire city. God said that, hypothetically, that he would. Outside of the specific parameters of the request, God's reaction was written in scripture.

Genesis 19:29 - So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

I was trying to focus on the psychology in this thread. I wasn't presenting my ideas as doctrines or even truths. Did you catch the title of the thread? But if you are so sane while I'm out of my senses, why don't you tell us how it was that Lot is called "righteous" when he got drunk two nights in a row and committed incest with his two daughters? I certainly have a "theory" about it; but what do you think?

 

[brakelite]

Sometimes the best thing to do is let them have what they want. When things go wrong, they'll learn. Some people learn only the hard way. We may not enjoy seeing them learn the hard way, but sometimes it's the only way they will learn.

This is particularly difficult when you end up suffering from the results along with the guy you let loose. But that is the essence of meekness... Bearing the burdens and anguish of spirit that others sins impose upon us.

Ellen White in her brilliant book Patriarchs and Prophets wrote the following of Lot...
Although Lot owed his prosperity to his connection with Abraham, he manifested no gratitude to his benefactor. Courtesy would have dictated that he yield the choice to Abraham, but instead of this he selfishly endeavored to grasp all its advantages. He “lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, ... even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.” The most fertile region in all Palestine was the Jordan Valley, reminding the beholders of the lost Paradise and equaling the beauty and productiveness of the Nile-enriched plains they had so lately left. There were cities also, wealthy and beautiful, inviting to profitable traffic in their crowded marts.Dazzled with visions of worldly gain, Lot overlooked the moral and spiritual evils that would be encountered there. The inhabitants of the plain were “sinners before the Lord exceedingly;” but of this he was ignorant, or, knowing, gave it but little weight. He “chose him all the plain of Jordan,” and “pitched his tent toward Sodom.” How little did he foresee the terrible results of that selfish choice! PP 133.1

And then a couple of chapters later had this to say....

In how wide contrast to the life of Abraham was that of Lot! Once they had been companions, worshiping at one altar, dwelling side by side in their pilgrim tents; but how widely separated now! Lot had chosen Sodom for its pleasure and profit.Leaving Abraham’s altar and its daily sacrifice to the living God, he had permitted his children to mingle with a corrupt and idolatrous people; yet he had retained in his heart the fear of God, for he is declared in the Scriptures to have been a “just” man; his righteous soul was vexed with the vile conversation that greeted his ears daily and the violence and crime he was powerless to prevent. He was saved at last as “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zechariah 3:2), yet stripped of his possessions, bereaved of his wife and children, dwelling in caves, like the wild beasts, covered with infamy in his old age; and he gave to the world, not a race of righteous men, but two idolatrous nations, at enmity with God and warring upon His people, until, their cup of iniquity being full, they were appointed to destruction. How terrible were the results that followed one unwise step! PP 168.1

 

[Giuliano]

This is particularly difficult when you end up suffering from the results along with the guy you let loose. But that is the essence of meekness... Bearing the burdens and anguish of spirit that others sins impose upon us.

Ellen White in her brilliant book Patriarchs and Prophets wrote the following of Lot...
Although Lot owed his prosperity to his connection with Abraham, he manifested no gratitude to his benefactor. Courtesy would have dictated that he yield the choice to Abraham, but instead of this he selfishly endeavored to grasp all its advantages. He “lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, ... even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.” The most fertile region in all Palestine was the Jordan Valley, reminding the beholders of the lost Paradise and equaling the beauty and productiveness of the Nile-enriched plains they had so lately left. There were cities also, wealthy and beautiful, inviting to profitable traffic in their crowded marts.Dazzled with visions of worldly gain, Lot overlooked the moral and spiritual evils that would be encountered there. The inhabitants of the plain were “sinners before the Lord exceedingly;” but of this he was ignorant, or, knowing, gave it but little weight. He “chose him all the plain of Jordan,” and “pitched his tent toward Sodom.” How little did he foresee the terrible results of that selfish choice! PP 133.1

And then a couple of chapters later had this to say....

In how wide contrast to the life of Abraham was that of Lot! Once they had been companions, worshiping at one altar, dwelling side by side in their pilgrim tents; but how widely separated now! Lot had chosen Sodom for its pleasure and profit.Leaving Abraham’s altar and its daily sacrifice to the living God, he had permitted his children to mingle with a corrupt and idolatrous people; yet he had retained in his heart the fear of God, for he is declared in the Scriptures to have been a “just” man; his righteous soul was vexed with the vile conversation that greeted his ears daily and the violence and crime he was powerless to prevent. He was saved at last as “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zechariah 3:2), yet stripped of his possessions, bereaved of his wife and children, dwelling in caves, like the wild beasts, covered with infamy in his old age; and he gave to the world, not a race of righteous men, but two idolatrous nations, at enmity with God and warring upon His people, until, their cup of iniquity being full, they were appointed to destruction. How terrible were the results that followed one unwise step! PP 168.1

Ellen White got that right, I'd say. I think it's good to reflect like that on the people in the Bible since it seems to make them more real. Even if we're mistaken about some things, we're trying to understand the people.

Lot was indeed "just" but I don't see him as either very loving or wise. He seems to have impressed the citizens of Sodom since the angels found him sitting "in the gate." Judges sat in the gates of cities to dispense justice, so it looks as if even they acknowledged him as being "just" and "fair" and made him a judge.

I also think Lot was perhaps secretly ashamed of some things he did since he knew he lacked love and wisdom, craving money and pleasure too much. Why else wouldn't he return to the safety of where Abraham was living? The angels told him to flee to "the mountain" and he gave an excuse. I think he didn't want to face Abraham. We are told Abraham was living on a mountain too in Genesis 12:8. I guess he was too embarrassed to return penniless and in disgrace. That tells me he did not understand the goodness of Abraham. There is something cold about Lot -- too much concerned with being "righteous" and "just" without taking compassion into account.

Then to compound his errors, he did not tell his daughters there were other people alive on the earth. Lot knew Abraham was alive; but he played dumb with his daughters. I think Lot knew if they had known there were other men, they would have wanted to leave and get married, leaving him all alone. He could plead he didn't know what he was doing, I guess. He could think of himself as being victimized since he was drunk and they took advantage of him. But to do it twice?

I find it easier to excuse the daughters as do some rabbis. Would you "wish yourself accursed" if it meant saving the human race? Would you risk great punishment by Heaven if your action accomplished great good for others? How else could they obey the commandment given to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply so that man could replenish and subdue the earth? It is a bizarre situation to be sure; but I find it easy to forgive them even though it brought down a curse on their offspring. Theirs was a sin of ignorance since Lot kept them in the dark. I don't find Lot very loving when he preferred to keep his daughters living with him in a cave so he wouldn't be alone when he could have returned to Abraham and his daughters could have found respectable husbands.

The rabbis have another insight about Lot's reasoning here:

Genesis 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

They point out how Lot was looking at things comparatively. He felt morally superior when living in Sodom. If he returned to Abraham, he'd feel inferior. He seemed afraid that God might judge him more harshly if he was around Abraham. They rabbis compare him to the widow of Zarephath who seemed to think her sin could be forgotten as long as she was living among wicked people but she might be judged around a holy man.

1 Kings 17:18 And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?

Notice too that the older daughter had the idea on how to save the human race and went first. Some rabbis say she was "rewarded" for this by having Moab marry into the Messianic line first.

I find a lesson in the story. If we think about returning to someone but feel ashamed to see them again, the best thing may be to swallow our pride. Don't be afraid of appearing inferior alongside someone you respect.

 

[DNB]

I was trying to focus on the psychology in this thread. I wasn't presenting my ideas as doctrines or even truths. Did you catch the title of the thread? But if you are so sane while I'm out of my senses, why don't you tell us how it was that Lot is called "righteous" when he got drunk two nights in a row and committed incest with his two daughters? I certainly have a "theory" about it; but what do you think?

He did not commit incest, his daughters needed to get him drunk in order that he wasn't aware of what he was doing.
When someone is raped, they are not guilty of fornication, even though they had intercourse. Lot was, in essence, raped.
Even though many men throughout the bible were called 'righteous', like David - 'a man after God's own heart', Moses - 'a friend of God', Abraham - 'whom God loved', these men were clearly not perfect, and capable of rather heinous crimes. But a balanced view will not compel someone to call them either good or bad, conclusively. This is what you did with Lot.
You kept the main point out of your study (he was saved from Sodom because he was found worthy, according to Abraham's plea).

 

[Giuliano]

He did not commit incest, his daughters needed to get him drunk in order that he wasn't aware of what he was doing.
When someone is raped, they are not guilty of fornication, even though they had intercourse. Lot was, in essence, raped.
Even though many men throughout the bible were called 'righteous', like David - 'a man after God's own heart', Moses - 'a friend of God', Abraham - 'whom God loved', these men were clearly not perfect, and capable of rather heinous crimes. But a balanced view will not compel someone to call them either good or bad, conclusively. This is what you did with Lot.
You kept the main point out of your study (he was saved from Sodom because he was found worthy, according to Abraham's plea).

Why did he allow it to happen twice? Why did he mislead them into thinking they were the only people on the earth?

If I got drunk and someone raped me, I'd take some responsibility for it myself. Sure the other person would be guilty, but I'd tell myself I shouldn't get that drunk; and I surely wouldn't get that drunk again!

 

[Jay Ross]

Perhaps, the story needs to start much earlier with the following facts.

If we read the Book of Jasher, from chapter 7 onwards, we are told that Nahor and Haran where born around 32 years before the birth of Abraham, and that Haran left Ur and lived for many years in the city he established and called it Haran after himself. Were are told that Haran had two daughter, one of which Nahor takes as one of his wives, and her descendants figured later in the story of Isaac and Jacob. Haran then has a son, Lot, who he returns with to Ur to present to his father, but while he is Ur Haran gets caught up in the events of Nimrod's attempts to kill Abraham and he dies in the furnace when he is put in the furnace with Abraham.

Abraham at this time is married to Sarah and we know from the biblical record that she is barren. Abraham also has had received the Abrahamic Covenant from God. With the death of Haran and Terah's fall from grace with Nimrod, Terah flees Ur to go towards a "land" that God would show Abraham, even though God never promised Abraham any "land" within the Abrahamic Covenant, but rather promised Abraham the whole earth as his and dis descendants future inheritance from God.

The second reason why Terah had left Ur quickly after the death of Haran in the fiery furnace, was to ensure that Lot would inherit his father's wealth in Haran of flocks and servants instead of the inheritance going to Haran's chief steward. Now we are not told how old Lot is or when he was born to Haran, but we can assume that he was possibly around the age of 12 years old when Haran brought Lot to his father, Terah. With Lot now being fatherless because Haran had died in the furnace with Abraham, Abraham adopts Lot as his son, to sort of "aid/help" God in giving him an heir because Sarah was barren at this time, even though God had promised Abraham a natural son through his wife Sarah. While Abraham spent around 20 or so years in Haran, he was able to quickly establish for himself flocks and servants who were drawn to him. It is possible that Abraham's chief steward was a gift at some time from Nimrod.

Abraham, when he leaves Haran to go to where the Lord required him to travel, takes Lot with him as a safe guard, to ensure that he has descendants, even if God does not give him a natural heir through his wife Sahar.

It is not until Lot separates himself from Abraham in Chapter 13 that Abraham must trust God for a descendant, but even in Chapter 14 Abraham goes out to rescue Lot to keep his options open, but Lot return to Sodom along with the other rescued inhabitants of Sodom.

In Chapter 15 God assures Abraham that he will have descendants born through his own body, and it is then that Abraham believes that God would do so, however, Sahar did not believe God's promise to Abraham and so around 11 years after they had left Haran, Abraham has a son through Sahar's Egyptian maid, that she had been given shortly after leaving Haran and they had gone down as far as the Nile

River.

Even some 24 years later, Abraham intercedes with God to keep his options alive through Lot by pleading with God to save the righteous in Sodom where Lot was living. God knew that Abraham would teach those around him about the things of God and his kingdom, and Lot was evidence of this.

The story of Lot, gives us more of an insight into the dysfunctionality of Abraham than it does of Lot.

Shalom​

 

[Hidden In Him]

Would you tell one of your closest relatives, "Sorry we can't live close to each other because we're too rich." You might -- but what kind of relative would you say that to?

LoL. I doubt I would ever be able to tell that to any of my relatives, but here's hoping!

About your question, the strife appears in context to have been over the issue of were their herds would graze, so Abraham sought to simply solve the issue by suggesting they spread out, since "the whole land was before them." So a better parallel would be if two related families were in the same business, and friction was starting to break out because they were competing with one another over customers in the same territory.

It seems like a pretty good solution to me, especially when Abraham was generous enough to let Lot decide who would get what territory. The tragic part is that they did distance themselves as a result, and Lot wound up in "prosperity land" but among rank sinners who would eventually come under judgment from God. From all we know of Abraham, if he had been able to prophetically see what would happen to Lot, I think he would have come up with a better solution.

 

[Hidden In Him]

God Chose Abram, not his whole famdamly! LOL

I wish my whole famdamly had been chosen by God, LoL. Dare I say it, but that would be damned awesome! : )

 

[DNB]

Why did he allow it to happen twice? Why did he mislead them into thinking they were the only people on the earth?

If I got drunk and someone raped me, I'd take some responsibility for it myself. Sure the other person would be guilty, but I'd tell myself I shouldn't get that drunk; and I surely wouldn't get that drunk again!

You are speculating way too much. Who knows how the deception took place, for Lot wasn't even aware that he slept with the first daughter, by the time the second time came around.

Lot never deceived them into thinking that they were the only people on earth.
The daughters knew that their lineage consisted only of the three of them. Any family member that they had was wiped out in Sodom, because their relatives didn't take the warning serious.
And this, therefore, is what they were trying to preserve, their lineage, not the human race.

Genesis 19:32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."

I have absolutely no idea where you get your absurd conclusions from?
From every angle, you are jumping to conclusions.

 

[Giuliano]

You are speculating way too much. Who knows how the deception took place, for Lot wasn't even aware that he slept with the first daughter, by the time the second time came around.

I see too that you're doing some of your own speculating by saying Lot wasn't aware of what he had done. Do righteous people get that drunk?

Lot never deceived them into thinking that they were the only people on earth.
The daughters knew that their lineage consisted only of the three of them. Any family member that they had was wiped out in Sodom, because their relatives didn't take the warning serious.
And this, therefore, is what they were trying to preserve, their lineage, not the human race.

Genesis 19:32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."

I have absolutely no idea where you get your absurd conclusions from?
From every angle, you are jumping to conclusions.

Surely you saw the verse right before that?

Genesis 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Where did they get that idea then?

From your comment about David and Moses, I would say you've indulged in some speculations of your own -- which I probably would disagree with. If I have time, I may defend them against some of the charges people level at them. While they erred at times, it seems to me they weren't guilty of everything people often accuse them of.

 

[DNB]

I see too that you're doing some of your own speculating by saying Lot wasn't aware of what he had done. Do righteous people get that drunk?


Surely you saw the verse right before that?

Genesis 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Where did they get that idea then?

From your comment about David and Moses, I would say you've indulged in some speculations of your own -- which I probably would disagree with.

Your translation is obviously misleading.
Genesis 19:31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.
Plus, 'the custom all over the earth' was the give away that there were existing standards that they were trying to compete with. As opposed to referring to a cataclysmic demise.
For crying out loud, i quoted the Bible about David & Moses, are you unaware???

 

[Giuliano]

Your translation is obviously misleading.
Genesis 19:31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.
Plus, 'the custom all over the earth' was the give away that there were existing standards that they were trying to compete with. As opposed to referring to a cataclysmic demise.

Sorry, but you are the one who has the flawed translation. Young's Literal Translation has it this say:

YLT And the first-born saith unto the younger, `Our father [is] old, and a man there is not in the earth to come in unto us, as [is] the way of all the earth;

Your translation assumes they knew there were men elsewhere, so it adds, "around here." It also adds, for some reason, "one day." While I admit I am conjecturing, I'm not altering the text. I'd say that translation also conjectured and then changed the Bible itself to fit their theory of things.

For crying out loud, i quoted the Bible about David & Moses, are you unaware???

You gave us the compliments paid to them in the Bible but cited nothing when you said they were "capable of heinous crimes." Perhaps you are the unaware one? If you are going to say someone is capable of heinous crimes, shouldn't you have some evidence?

 

[DNB]

Sorry, but you are the one who has the flawed translation. Young's Literal Translation has it this say:

YLT And the first-born saith unto the younger, `Our father [is] old, and a man there is not in the earth to come in unto us, as [is] the way of all the earth;

Your translation assumes they knew there were men elsewhere, so it adds, "around here." It also adds, for some reason, "one day." While I admit I am conjecturing, I'm not altering the text. I'd say that translation also conjectured and then changed the Bible itself to fit their theory of things.

You gave us the compliments paid to them in the Bible but cited nothing when you said they were "capable of heinous crimes." Perhaps you are the unaware one? If you are going to say someone is capable of heinous crimes, shouldn't you have some evidence?

Words can't express how frivolous and incompetent that you are in interpreting the Bible.
The daughters clearly saw that only Sodom and the surrounding villages were destroyed. There's nothing in that evidence to make them think that they were the only ones left on earth. Nature's elements destroyed Sodom, not disease, for example. Therefore they would have seen the limitations of the destruction, ...regardless of the translation. Anyone who has read several different translations, knows right away when NOT to take certain expressions hyper-literaly. Your not qualified to even apply conjecture.
Why do i have to cite passages, David committed covetousness, adultery, murder, enumerated the Israelites, was a warrior, why did i need to cite this? Are you a novice?
After leading the Israelites out of Egypt with signs & wonders, and putting up with them through the desert, even saving their lives more than once, he was rejected from entering the promised land.
The fact that i had to bring this up to you, disqualifies you from any further discussion.

 

[Giuliano]

Words can't express how frivolous and incompetent that you are in interpreting the Bible.
The daughters clearly saw that only Sodom and the surrounding villages were destroyed. There's nothing in that evidence to make them think that they were the only ones left on earth. Nature's elements destroyed Sodom, not disease, for example. Therefore they would have seen the limitations of the destruction, ...regardless of the translation. Anyone who has read several different translations, knows right away when NOT to take certain expressions hyper-literaly. Your not qualified to even apply conjecture.
Why do i have to cite passages, David committed covetousness, adultery, murder, enumerated the Israelites, was a warrior, why did i need to cite this? Are you a novice?
After leading the Israelites out of Egypt with signs & wonders, and putting up with them through the desert, even saving their lives more than once, he was rejected from entering the promised land.
The fact that i had to bring this up to you, disqualifies you from any further discussion.

You say I am frivolous and speculate about my competence? Yet you are the one who did not know what the Hebrew said, relying on a flawed translation while telling me mine was wrong. Why not tone it down and adopt a gentler tone?

Am I a novice? Perhaps, but I know for sure the Bible nowhere says David committed adultery. I have a knack about that -- remembering what the Bible actually says and giving that more importance than my conjectures. He did not commit adultery. He wrote about that incident with Bathsheba in Psalm 51. He did sin, but it wasn't adultery or murder.

Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

The Bible does not say he committed adultery. It's not in there. The Jews don't teach he committed adultery because the Bible doesn't say that, so they can explain Psalm 51. What you may not know is that men divorced their wives when they went to war. That was how the Sanhedrin had ruled, so that's how they did it. David's sin in the matter was against God alone just as he wrote.

If you cannot take the heat of this discussion and want to run, it's fine with me. You weary me with the negative tone you've taken. If I were in a better mood, maybe I could smile at your criticizing my having a bad translation when it was you who got misled by a bad one. As it is, it makes me pity you. You might be wise to scurry away. Who knows? I might adopt a more severe tone.

You have shown again your own lack of knowledge about the Bible. I assure you this time, you can't blame a bad translation since no translations say David was guilty of adultery.

I think I know when I am speculating. You appear not to, sometimes confusing the speculations of men with what is actually written in the Bible.

 

[Stranger]

You say I am frivolous and speculate about my competence? Yet you are the one who did not know what the Hebrew said, relying on a flawed translation while telling me mine was wrong. Why not tone it down and adopt a gentler tone?

Am I a novice? Perhaps, but I know for sure the Bible nowhere says David committed adultery. I have a knack about that -- remembering what the Bible actually says and giving that more importance than my conjectures. He did not commit adultery. He wrote about that incident with Bathsheba in Psalm 51. He did sin, but it wasn't adultery or murder.

Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

The Bible does not say he committed adultery. It's not in there. The Jews don't teach he committed adultery because the Bible doesn't say that, so they can explain Psalm 51. What you may not know is that men divorced their wives when they went to war. That was how the Sanhedrin had ruled, so that's how they did it. David's sin in the matter was against God alone just as he wrote.

If you cannot take the heat of this discussion and want to run, it's fine with me. You weary me with the negative tone you've taken. If I were in a better mood, maybe I could smile at your criticizing my having a bad translation when it was you who got misled by a bad one. As it is, it makes me pity you. You might be wise to scurry away. Who knows? I might adopt a more severe tone.

You have shown again your own lack of knowledge about the Bible. I assure you this time, you can't blame a bad translation since no translations say David was guilty of adultery.

I think I know when I am speculating. You appear not to, sometimes confusing the speculations of men with what is actually written in the Bible.

David was guilty of adultery and murder. Scripture is clear. (2 Sam. 12:5-9)

Stranger