LOT AND HIS TWO DAUGHTERS

[warrior12]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Remember Lot was a backslider living in town and participating with the affairs of the Sodomites. Evidently he was a politician and held a position akin to an Alderman, customs agent or Mayor.

 

1 hour ago, soonsister said:

In my opinion, Lot demonstrated he was unqualified to be deemed righteous the moment he did that.

2 Peter 2King James Version (KJV)

⁷ And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

⁸ (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

I think peter gave his description of LOT that is worth more than ours i would think as it is scripture which men have come in agreement is the inspired word of God.   Many have said LOT held high positions in Sodom, but to me that is speculation and not real facts as written words.  We see above LOT was vexed and Peter an apostle deemed him righteous in what ?, seeing and hearing  and when day to day.  It was not like LOT sat lived in Sodom and was having a good time and enjoying the wickedness that  took place.  Have more to say on this, but i have to get back to chores at the moment.   By the way, Kwick did mention that LOT was not tested to determine his faithfulness as i had mentioned,  because the Lord knows what would have been the outcome and that is correct.  So that is ruled out.

[soonsister]

42 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

 

2 Peter 2King James Version (KJV)

⁷ And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

⁸ (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

I think peter gave his description of LOT that is worth more than ours i would think as it is scripture which men have come in agreement is the inspired word of God.   Many have said LOT held high positions in Sodom, but to me that is speculation and not real facts as written words.  We see above LOT was vexed and Peter an apostle deemed him righteous in what ?, seeing and hearing  and when day to day.  It was not like LOT sat lived in Sodom and was having a good time and enjoying the wickedness that  took place.  Have more to say on this, but i have to get back to chores at the moment.   By the way, Kwick did mention that LOT was not tested to determine his faithfulness as i had mentioned,  because the Lord knows what would have been the outcome and that is correct.  So that is ruled out.

And yet Peter has no place to declare Lot righteous.God already did that when in his omniscience he knew Lot and his entire life before God created the world.

[warrior12]

11 minutes ago, soonsister said:

And yet Peter has no place to declare Lot righteous

  So what you are saying is Peter made an Judgmental error with his statement.  Then we should read his epistles with a grain of salt and scrutinize them more for any other declarations.  Oh, well, lets see what others have to say too.

[soonsister]

24 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

  So what you are saying is Peter made an Judgmental error with his statement.  Then we should read his epistles with a grain of salt and scrutinize them more for any other declarations.  Oh, well, lets see what others have to say too.

That's a huge projection on your part due to my one observation that God's declaring Lot righteous preceded and had more weight than a mere mortal.

And we're all here to see what others have to say. It's a thread after all.

[HisFirst]

10 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

I don't think God would have allowed Lot and his family to leave if that was the case. The destruction of those two cites were for the whickidness within them and I don't think it was a issue of degree, but the saturation within the society there.

There are many cases in the Bible about the duty of family members to extend the seed of other family members.  One particular case was in Genesis 38:7-26:
 

 

I hear what you are saying CM and know the Scripture you mention.

Just going back to Lot offering his daughters to the men, I see that as a decision resting purely as Lot's alone. I can't see God directing that decision -

the setting is his house surrounded by emotionally charged males of all ages wanting to the " visitors"(angels) - to allow these men access to the daughters would've been "gang rape".  Would God be pleased with that? I think not.

And I agree with the others that the angels would've protected themselves if the situation was different - as we see they used supernatural means anyhow, by blinding the men from finding their way into the house and getting Lots  family out of town.

*actually, by supernaturally blinding those men, allowed Lot's daughters Not to be sexually violated.

Edited January 19, 2017 by HisFirst

[Churchmouse]

1 hour ago, HisFirst said:

I hear what you are saying CM and know the Scripture you mention.

Just going back to Lot offering his daughters to the men, I see that as a decision resting purely as Lot's alone. I can't see God directing that decision -

the setting is his house surrounded by emotionally charged males of all ages wanting to the " visitors"(angels) - to allow these men access to the daughters would've been "gang rape".  Would God be pleased with that? I think not.

And I agree with the others that the angels would've protected themselves if the situation was different - as we see they used supernatural means anyhow, by blinding the men from finding their way into the house and getting Lots  family out of town.

*actually, by supernaturally blinding those men, allowed Lot's daughters Not to be sexually violated.

Yes the decision was on lot to offer his daughters and I think it was a cultural thing that was predominant at the time. That reality and many other examples is why I'm glad we've have learned so much about really loving eachother and appriciating all that God has granted us.

[Neighbor]

On 1/17/2017 at 10:31 PM, warrior12 said:

Genesis 19King James Version (KJV)

⁸ Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Lot, Abraham nephew.  I have heard numerous sermons and read articles condemning Lot in the most vilifying  and humiliating ways as to the scripture verse above.  

My question.  What do you think ?.  Was Lot a man who willing wanted to give up  his daughters up to be gang raped by the sodomites to protect two strangers he did not know or was he trying to just ease the tensions, calm things down and let his guest be unharmed.    Or do you have a different view of how you may interpret what took place there. ? 

To speculate upon what took place requires yet additional speculation- What is God's good purpose that is being revealed in the character of Lot - his wife and his daughters themselves, for application in our own relationship with our creator?

For  that I think it is necessary to do  an overview of the man, and then to further consider who were these women called his daughters? Were they of his bloodline? Or were they  of his wife's and not his? Were they of the people to be kept separate from the nations, and in tents or were they  inhabitants that treasured the city, not knowing what threat that  posed to them personally?

Some speculation about Lot is developed in a sermon about Lot's wife delivered by Charles Spurgeon. It does not direct itself to the question asked, but it does  give fuller reveal of the speculation  as to the nature and history plus  motivations upon the man Lot, that would have influenced him to do much of what He did. Plus it makes greater an awareness that it all served and still serves the divine providence worked out in the sovereignty of God who is sovereign over all.

The sermon is not short, it does not deal directly with the  question, but it is  of good value  as one adds to it personal speculation of the culture, the history of Lot, and his circumstance.

The sermon if interested may be found  as sermon number 1491 "Remember Lot's Wife" http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols25-27/chs1491.pdf  . It should be of value if the greater interest is  in application for today to apply to and  for ourselves.

 

p.s. In any case thanks for the thread and the question. It has led me to a very nice study and read this early morning; and to seeing  a warning about "dancing" with  the comforts of society that is without God, instead of keeping separate to God for His good purposes..

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Neighbor

[other one]

does anyone know off hand what peoples if any were started by Lots off spring....   I don't have the time to research that right now.

[Dennis1209]

Let me throw something out here...

Would anyone disagree that Lot was a backslider, living in sin and unrepentant at the time of Sodom's destruction? If that's in fact the case, would there be an application for today? Could this possibly be an example that "backsliders" walking an unrepentant life are still saved??? I'm not trying to read anything into this, but Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding area is used as an example.

A couple of other things I find interesting (from memory so I may be off?). Lot's wife who became a pillar of salt, was evidently still recognizable during the time of Moses when he wrote Genesis. How do you suppose they knew or recognized that pillar as Lot's wife? It was a very long time between Lot and Moses writing the Torah. I realize this was an arid desert, but it does rain in the desert from time to time, and we know how very little water it takes to dissolve a large amount of salt? I'm wondering how that pillar of salt lasted centuries?

Many suspect this event is what created the  'Salt Sea' (Dead Sea). 

 

[soonsister]

4 hours ago, other one said:

does anyone know off hand what peoples if any were started by Lots off spring....   I don't have the time to research that right now.

http://www.ldolphin.org/Lot.html