tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post2282623574463650817..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: Silly Bible - Lot of NonsenseRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-4503052513806660792014-08-09T09:54:40.157+01:002014-08-09T09:54:40.157+01:00Excellent, Rosa! And here we can read about more e...Excellent, Rosa! And here we can read about more examples of incest in the Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible .<br /><br />A quote: One of the most notable features of all the lists is that sexual activity between a man and his own daughter is not explicitly forbidden. Although the first relation mentioned after the Levitical prohibition of sex with "near kin" names that of "thy father",[11] it must be taken into account that the Hebrew original text only addresses male Jews with regard to their female relatives.[12] <br /><br />The talmud argues that the absence is because the prohibition was obvious, especially given the proscription against a relationship with a granddaughter,[13] although some biblical scholars have instead proposed that it was originally in the list, but was then accidentally left out from the copy on which modern versions of the text ultimately depend, due to a mistake by the scribe.[14] <br /><br />The second list in the Holiness code noticeably differs from the first by not including the closer relatives, and it might be assumed that obviousness is the explanation here as well.[1] One might argue that the explicit prohibition against engaging in sexual activity with a woman as well as with her daughter,[15] implicitly forbids sexual activity between a man and his daughter. <br />However, the rationale might suggest otherwise (the original text is unclear here), since it mentions only that "they" (i.e. the woman and the daughter) are related.[16] John Calvin did not consider the father-daughter-relation to be explicitly forbidden by the bible, but regarded it as immoral nevertheless.[17] [End of quote]<br /><br />Consider especially this sentence: "some biblical scholars have instead proposed that it [i.e.sexual activity between a man and his own daughter] was originally in the list, but was then accidentally left out from the copy on which modern versions of the text ultimately depend, due to a mistake by the scribe."<br /><br />I doubt that explanation is correct. I think the omission was made on purpose, just to defend Lot's (and other biblical men's) incestuous behavior. To manipulate bible verses so that their message becomes politically correct can be seen as a pious or divine act, cf the saying "Lying for God/Jesus". Anyhow, in the Wikipedia article you can read about ten specific incestuous relationships in the Bible. So Lot isn't the only one in the Bible having incestuous sex. Nine of the ten examples of incestuous sex are taken from Genesis. Helmer von Helvetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02136543309048013677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-5006764071892722542014-08-09T03:04:04.169+01:002014-08-09T03:04:04.169+01:00An interesting explanation, and it obviously hangs...An interesting explanation, and it obviously hangs together given the straightforward way those peoples are presented as descendants of the illicit incestuous encounters. It doesn't quite get the author off the hook morally, though. The fact remains that he presented Lot as the only man righteous enough to be saved -- though arguably if he was really so drunk during the incest that he didn't quite realize what was happening, his depravity is lessened thereby. And I don't have a problem with the men of Sodom being condemned -- an attempted homosexual gang rape is indeed immoral in a way that homosexuality in itself is not. But presumably all the innocent women and children in Sodom were wiped out when God nuked the place, which he actually had no reason to do any more since the depravity of the real, er, Sodomites had been de-fanged by blinding them all.<br /><br />If the author had just wanted to paint the despised Moabites and Ammonites as products of inbreeding, he could have started with a much simpler scenario and left out the whole angels-and-nuking-of-Sodom thing. It's still another clumsy and morally-incoherent story.<br /><br />In fact, a hell of a lot of the Bible reads as if the authors were the products of a long period of severe inbreeding.Infidel753https://www.blogger.com/profile/10965786814334886696noreply@blogger.com