Why Didn't YHWH Punish Lot's Daughters For Getting Him Drunk and Sexing Him Up?

[Exarch]

19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. (19:30-38)
"Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."
Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn't you know it!). Neither Lot nor his daughters are criticized here or anywhere else in the Bible. It's just another wholesome family values Bible story.
Was Lot a righteous man?
(19:31)
"There is not a man in the earth to come in unto us."
Did Lot's daughters think God had killed every man except Lot?

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
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:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. The Seduction of Lot
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. What the Bible says about incest, family values, and fathers
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.
19:38 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.

source: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#36

or was this something YHWH didn't consider to be sinful until he told moses to include it in the 10 commandments?
cuz it seemed like he more or less turned a blind eye to this, but then and again this is stone age YHWH we're talking about who would genocide a city for ing.

so what's the deal with this, is YHWH saying 'incest is ok if you believe you're the last humans on earth'?

[Helm]

It may have been incest but it was hetereosexual so God would have been ok with that.

[Exarch]

ooooh so it's only ok to commit incest if it's hetereosexual?
got it,


lol

[Denny Crane!]

I can probably give the Christians answers for you:

Its allegorical, metaphorical, metaphysical, litigurgical and homocidal....oopps that last one slipped in there.

Whatever god says is good is good because he is god (absurd I know)

[Helm]

But Lot did offer his daughters up to be gang raped so he got his own back there. There's certainly some grit in that Old Testament.

[Ancient Aliens]

Because incest wasn't considered as ghastly in the Bronze Age as it is today, most likely.

[Lord Rahl]

I like the genuine interest of discussing the Bible here. It's so intellectually stirring!

[Charrua]

I like the genuine interest of discussing the Bible here. It's so intellectually stirring!

Do I recall some similarity with Montgomery Scott punch line in the last Star Trek movie?

[Hilarion]

I like the genuine interest of discussing the Bible here. It's so intellectually stirring!

Yeah, I could immediately tell from the title that this thread would be a doozy. Certainly beyond my mental capacity, we had best leave it up to our resident masters of theology who have apparently already taken interest.

[Yosemite]

maybe it wasn't mentioned

[Exarch]

ugh it just seems so 'hills have eyes' with lot and his daughters commiting incest; but incest was considered a grievous sin and a crime against nature according to bronze age cultures.

this is a big deal because it seems like there's this disgusting sinning going on and yet YHWH is wholly absent in condemning it, yet he loses his when onan applies the withdrawal method. it seems like YHWH's priorities are even more mysterious as to be ridicuclous

[Ancient Aliens]

ugh it just seems so 'hills have eyes' with lot and his daughters commiting incest; but incest was considered a grievous sin and a crime against nature according to bronze age cultures.

It depends on which aspect of Bronze Age culture we are discussing. In Bronze Age religion, incest was a very common theme.

It is actually quite a common theme in the Old Testament in general. For example:

• All early humans were incestuous, as Adam and Eve were the sole originators of the human race.
• Abraham's relationship with Sarah was incestuous, as is mentioned here:

"Howbeit, otherwise also she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife. And after God brought me out of my father’s house, I said to her: Thou shalt do me this kindness: In every place, to which we shall come, thou shalt say that I am thy brother." - Genesis 20:12-13

[Helm]

If you notice anything like that in the Bible its been cherry picked out. Though they leave the text in there for historical completeness.

[Helm]

The only Bronze Age religion that was into incest was the ancient Egyptian religion, and that was more to keep noble bloodlines pure. The Jews may have picked up a few pagan stories. Noahs Ark originally came from the epic of Gilgamesh for instance, adapted to fit one God.

[cfmonkey45]

According to the biblical account, Genesis 19:37-38, Ammon and Moab were born to Lot and Lot's younger and elder daughters, respectively, in the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible refers to both the Ammonites and Moabites as the "children of Lot". Throughout the Bible, the Ammonites and Israelites are portrayed as mutual antagonists. During the Exodus, the Israelites were prohibited by the Ammonites from passing through their lands.[5] In the Book of Judges, the Ammonites work with Eglon, king of the Moabites against Israel. Attacks by the Ammonites on Israelite communities east of the Jordan were the impetus behind the unification of the tribes under Saul.[6]

According to both 1 Kings 14:21-31 and 2 Chronicles 12:13, Naamah was an Ammonite. She was the only wife of King Solomon to be mentioned by name in the Tanakh as having borne a child. She was the mother of Solomon's successor, Rehoboam.[7]
The Ammonites presented a serious problem to the Pharisees because many marriages with Ammonite (and Moabite) wives had taken place in the days of Nehemiah.[8] The men had married women of the various nations without conversion, which made the children not Jewish.[9] The legitimacy of David's claim to royalty was disputed on account of his descent from Ruth, the Moabite.[10]

The story serves to explain the bad relations between the Children of Israel (from Abraham), and the Children of Lot (Ammon and Moab). Though, curiously, is shows ambivalence. Further, despite linguistic and cultural relations, it goes to explain why they were not pure enough to receive the Revelation from God.

[Erunion Telcontar]

The only Bronze Age religion that was into incest was the ancient Egyptian religion, and that was more to keep noble bloodlines pure. The Jews may have picked up a few pagan stories. Noahs Ark originally came from the epic of Gilgamesh for instance, adapted to fit one God.

Not quite - study the text of both and you will see that, not only are they very different, the Genesis account is far more realistic, indeed, for the genesis account to be descended from the Sumerian would be very, very difficult. To quote Nozomi Osanai's (M.A, M.Div) detailed study;
"The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic."
She later goes on to say that the two flood narratives are descended from a common event or story. It is alos likely that this holds true for the other flood narratives that exist throughout the world.



On the original topic, I'll just take this from the wikipedia page on Lot:

"The incest that occurred between Lot and his daughters has raised many questions, debates and theories as to what the real motives were, who really was at fault, and the level of bias the author of Genesis Chapter 19 had. However, biblical scholars such as Jacob Milgrom,[7] Victor P. Hamilton,[8] and Cakum Carmichael,[9] postulate that the Levitical Laws could not have been developed the way they were, without controversial issues surrounding the Patriarchs of Israel, especially in regards to incest. Carmichael even attributes the entire formulation of the Levitical laws on the lives of the founding fathers of the nation, such as: Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Moses and David who were outstanding figures in Israelite tradition, including the righteous Lot.
According to the above mentioned scholars, the Patriarchs of Israel are the key to understanding how the Priestly laws concerning incest has developed. Incest amongst the patriarchs are as follows: Abraham marries his half-sister; Sarai[Gen.20:11,12] Abraham's brother, Nahor, marries their niece; Milcah [Gen.11:27-29] Isaac marries Rebekah his first cousin, once removed;[Gen.27:42,43;29:10] Jacob marries two sisters who are his first cousins [Gen.29:10,Ch.29] and Moses's parents are nephew and aunt (father's sister).[Exod.6:20] Therefore, it surely mattered to the lawgiver how the issues of incest pertained to these Patriarchs and they are the basis for the laws of the Book of Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.[10]
There are other scholars who also state that the Levitical laws against incest were created to separate the lifestyle of the Israelite from the sinful lifestyle of the cursed people of Canaan,[Gen.9:22-28] despite any incestual involvements the Patriarchs had in the past. [11] The Levitical laws were needed for a developing nation who needed to be seen as different from the world, cleansed and blameless: The first step starting with circumcision.[Gen.17:1,10;Ch.17] So nothing could be held against the Patriarchs for incestuous behavior because this was part of progressive development, from the ways of the world (coming out of Chaldea) to becoming blameless before their God.[Gen.17:1]"



EDIT: On the topic of Onan - God struck him down, not because he 'used the withdrawal method', but because he was basically trying to steal a fortune. In that particular culture, if your brother died childless it was the duty of the other brother to impregnate his brother's wife. The child of that union would then be legally considered the child of the first (dead) brother, and would receive that brother's portion of the inheritance, as well as carrying on that brother's family lineage. Onan figured that if he didn't do what he was supposed to do, than he would get all the money. Furthermore, Onan was told to do this and (presumably) agreed, so that adds in a measure of deceit and disobedience.
Of course, I'm not a theologian and there are probably other reasons that I can't think of (or remember).

[Mr. Crow]

Not quite - study the text of both and you will see that, not only are they very different, the Genesis account is far more realistic, indeed, for the genesis account to be descended from the Sumerian would be very, very difficult. To quote Nozomi Osanai's (M.A, M.Div) detailed study;
"The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic."
She later goes on to say that the two flood narratives are descended from a common event or story. It is alos likely that this holds true for the other flood narratives that exist throughout the world.

holly crap, HOLLY CRAP IN CRAP!!!!,

this is joke rigth?

on the incest,

its OK because it is heterosexual, plus it is common specially amongst bronze age tribes, god did however disliked the deception and mistreated their decedents.

on Adam and incest, well , technically he was ing himself as eve was made from a part of him.

[Mortality]

Didn't Adam and Eve have sex? I thought that was incest.

[Col. Tartleton]

Didn't Adam and Eve have sex? I thought that was incest.

Nope, they're the same person. Eve was made from the bone of his penis. That's why men don't have a bone in their penis but all the other primates do and why girls don't have penises. God just separated him into male and female parts.

[Visna]

Nope, they're the same person. Eve was made from the bone of his penis. That's why men don't have a bone in their penis but all the other primates do and why girls don't have penises. God just separated him into male and female parts.

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[a] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[b] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

God must have failed biology 101 if he could mistake one of Adam's ribs for a bone in his penis. Poor Adam. No penisbone, no apology for such a grave error from anyone, a temptress slut of a wife and a son who is a psychopath. Hasn't he suffered enough?!

On a sidenote, in the early stages of fetal development, the penis and the clitoris are the same.