The story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Sampiro]

@Abbie Carmichael

I say Issachar even though he technically wasn’t next in line after #4 Judah – there were several between them, birthed by the two servant girls. However, I think God intended for Leah to be Jesus’ direct ancestor because, well, Rachel was a bitch, and God is all about vindication, so Issachar would have been next in line.

Yes, unlike those polestars of human morality David & Bathsheba who were his ancestors (if you go with Matthew, whose genealogy is completely different from Luke, though either way he descended from the seductress widow Ruth, from Rachel’s mother-in-law Rebekah who conned her blind husband into blessing his least favorite and younger son and her mother-in-law Sarai who drove a pregnant woman into the desert and later banished her and her son without enough water to live save through divine intervention). Of course all of this implies that you accept Joseph rather than G_d as the father of Jesus.

[Good_Egg]

@Scott_plaid

First things first, A loud, unintelligent scream is greater than (9>3) being cool. :dubious: Somehow, I didn’t think that was what you meant.

I don’t know what you mean by that, but my GAH was to my assumption that you thought I believed the destruction of S&G was a nuclear blast and Mrs.Lot was turned into salt because of it. It was some thing I read somewhere. Not my own opinion. I appreciated your info.
The Spong book I finished recently claims also that the sin of Sodom wasn’t gay sex, and also that the townspeople were really out of line. I read somewhere it doesn’t mention that Lot’s wife was informed of this, only Lot, so she naturally turned and looked. There are many fascinating stories in the Bible.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Good Egg

I don’t know what you mean by that, but my GAH was to my assumption that you thought I believed the destruction of S&G was a nuclear blast and Mrs.Lot was turned into salt because of it.

Ah, so you where gasping in horror due to my thinking you actually thought that. Ok. Just as a bit of knowledge for the future, let me show you why I read it the way I did.

GAHHHHHHHHH >
uniteligable scream symbol for, symybol for
“greater than” the state of being “cool”

Also, there is not much room for dough about the reason why Madam Lot was turned to salt. They are clearly told, as a group, not to look behind them. Lot’s wife is curious, and looks behind her. Salty goodness ensues. Now, given that women always look behind them, when told not to in old stories, it is entirely possible for this whole thing to be a modification to an earlier tale. However, if you accept it as the real deal, then there is no room for any kind of logic or reason behind here turning back, besides simple curiosity.

Gn 19:17When they had taken them outside, they said, ‘Run for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the plain. Flee to the mountains, or you will be destroyed!’

[Scott_Plaid]

:smack: That should be something like the following:

GAHHHHHHHHH
(uniteligable scream)

>
(symbol for,
“greater than”)

(symbol for
the state of being “cool”)

[Malacandra]

@Sampiro

Yes, unlike those polestars of human morality David & Bathsheba …

Just to pick on this one point, it’s only fair to mention that David and Bathsheba got their comeuppance for that one. After that, perhaps God considered the account settled and David’s lesson thoroughly learned.
On the awfulness of Lot sending out his virgin daughters to be raped in place of the honoured guests, aren’t these two points to be borne in mind? -

1. Lot was not, by the customs of the time, exceeding the bounds of his authority. It’s a terrible thing to order your daughters to do, but he did in fact have the right.
2. Lot, knowing his fellow-citizens, was largely certain that the offer would be turned down, but he owed it to the honoured guests to show that he was prepared to make the offer.

[cmkeller]

Abbie Carmichael:

I’ve always thought that Judah’s reaction when he found out what Tamar had done could be what saved his blessing.

Good observation. You might also note that this was a major difference between David and Saul. When Saul was confronted by Samuel with his wrongdoing over not having killed the Amalekite king and cattle, he insisted that he had done nothing wrong, despite having disobeyed the express orders of G-d as conveyed through the prophet. When Nathan confronted David over his sin with Bathsheba, David was properly contrite. Clearly, G-d does not expect his annointed to be perfect - no human being can be - but the important attribute is that he be willing to admit to his mistakes when they’re pointed out to him. This is a distinction of Judah and of David, his descendant.

[Malacandra]

@cmkeller

When Nathan confronted David over his sin with Bathsheba, David was properly contrite.

And wrote the father and mother of all penitential psalms over it. I sang Allegri’s setting of Psalm LI on Ash Wednesday this year. “Contrite” doesn’t begin to cover it.

[Polycarp]

@Malacandra

And wrote the father and mother of all penitential psalms over it. I sang Allegri’s setting of Psalm LI on Ash Wednesday this year. “Contrite” doesn’t begin to cover it.

Agreed. (OT question. Malacandra: Why the heck don’t you have your “location” listed as Meldilorn?)

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

@Scott_plaid

Also, there is not much room for dough about the reason why Madam Lot was turned to salt. They are clearly told, as a group, not to look behind them. Lot’s wife is curious, and looks behind her. Salty goodness ensues. Now, given that women always look behind them, when told not to in old stories, it is entirely possible for this whole thing to be a modification to an earlier tale.

Um, yeah, like maybe of the Orpheus/Euridyce story in which, after Orpheus dies, Euridyce goes down into the underworld and so moves Hades and Persephone with her musical talents, the King and Queen of the netherworld agree to allow Orpheus to return to the land of the living, provided that Euri does not look backward to make sure Orph is following her…

However, if you accept it as the real deal, then there is no room for any kind of logic or reason behind here turning back, besides simple curiosity.

The interpretation I’ve seen of Mrs. Lot’s behavior was that she was looking back in longing and grief over the loss of what had been a luxurious lifestyle.

[MaceMan]

I find it very interesting that the main themes of the Sodom story are repeated almost exactly elsewhere in the Bible, in Judges chapters 19-20. Although I never hear any commentary on this, it appears to me that both stories could have been adapted from another common-source folktale about inhospitality. Here is an excerpt from Judges chapter 19 (NIV):

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, “Where are you going? Where did you come from?”

18 He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD . No one has taken me into his house. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants-me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything." 

20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. 

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." 

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." 

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. 

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. 

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!" 

[rfgdxm]

@MaceMan

Here is an excerpt from Judges chapter 19 (NIV):

Gee. What a nice guy.

[Malacandra]

@Polycarp

Agreed. (OT question. Malacandra: Why the heck don’t you have your “location” listed as Meldilorn?)

Mine is a body of different movements. It is no more true to say that I “am” in Meldilorn than that I “am” in the UK, but the average Doper is more comfortable with the latter, which provides an explanation of why I periodically bang on about black puddings, faggots, and warm beer, get prickly over anti-Brit slurs, and liken Tolkien’s hobbits to rural Englishmen.

Anyway, shouldn’t you be either in Asia Minor or on Tran?