Just because it exists doesn't mean it's right. That's deconstructionist, post-modern claptrap where all interpretations are valid so long as someone believes it. But no, some interpretations are wrong.
you're still preaching to the choir. look, i was never arguing that this is the best interpretation, or even neccessarily right. your argument was that the life-cycle was already in place -- this is not precisely so. adam and eve do not have kids BEFORE eating from the tree of knowledge. it is only after they eat that they reproduce, and one of the punishments god hands out is a reproductive one. in fact, they are not even aware of the fact they are naked until they eat from the tree -- what makes you think they knew how to use the genitals they weren't particularly aware of in the first place?
the sexual reading of genesis 3 is closely tied the qabalistic philosophy, where god creates man by sexual means. god is then upset, because the knowledge mankind stole was how to (pro)create.
So that we may
KNOW them. You know...the word "know"? "Learn about," "determine," "understand," "comprehend." And in the context of what just happened, "interrogate" isn't such a bad idea. You cannot understand Genesis 19 without reading the chapters that came before it. As Chapter 14 points out, Sodom had just gone through a war and had their asses handed to them. The only reason they're still around is because Abraham came along and saved them. But in the process, he humiliated them and they're quite worried that Abraham is going to take over. He says he won't, but they're skittish.
So here's this relative of Abraham living in their town who brings in two strangers. What on earth do you think the response of the city is going to be? "Hey! Let's go have an orgy!" Really? Or is it going to be, "Hey! Let's go find out what's going on!" And when the nephew of the guy who humiliated us tries to distract us from finding out who these two are, are we going to be happy about it?
Let's put it in a modern context. Suppose we had gone to war with Iraq and had our butts kicked. The only reason we don't suffer as many casualties as we could have is because Osama bin Laden comes in and saves us.
When we find Abdullah bin Laden bringing in people to this country who somehow haven't been processed through Homeland Security and Immigration, how long do you think it's going to be before the FBI surrounds his house? And are they going to demand sex? And when Abdullah tries to bribe them with sex, how are they going to respond?
quote:
5. that we may know them. i.e. vent our lust upon them (Rashi, ibn Ezra, Rashbam). Nachmanides' opinion is that their purpose was to keep strangers away, being anxious to retain all the wealth of the place to themselves. Although they were wicked in many other waysm their doom was their punishment for this selfishness and their refusal to help the poor.
(footnotes in my chumash)
i wish i had orlinsky's notes on the translation of the nJPS so we could see why he chose "be intimate" over the literal "know." sadly, iyov hasn't updated that part of his blog recently (he stops at gen 18), and i can't find the particular book anywhere.
but there are references all throughout the talmud and even other biblical texts that their sin was greed, inhospitality, and refusal to help the poor. the talmud says that they executed people who gave bread to the homeless. their intention is clearly to keep people out, and keep themselves from being looted again, and this part of your point is right. but it doesn't seem to be just suspicion. remember, these are not people god has targetted for being
careful. these are people god has planned in advanced to destroy because they were
wicked.
from the fact that the abraham/isaac lying to abimelech story appears in the bible three times, we can perhaps gather that some mild interrogation of outsiders was actually somewhat customary. these were not large city-states, and if someone rolled into town, as king, you probably wanted to know who they were and why they were there. whether or not you'd just been looted four chapters previously. abraham (isaac) expects it. like i said before, introductions hardly qualify as a sin worthy of destroying a town. nor does a little rudeness. clearly, they are in the habit of
mistreating outsiders in greivous ways.
No. On the contrary, it's messing YOU up. How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in? I know that "yada" has multiple meanings, one of which is to have sex. However, the only way you can make "yada" mean "have sex" is to use the word in a specific phrasing. THAT PHRASING IS NOT USED IN GENESIS 19:5. The exact phrasing used in Genesis 19:5 is used over a hundred other times in the Bible and not once in those other times is it interpreted to mean "have sex." So what's so special about this one time?
yeah? let's look at version 2.0 of this story.
quote:
As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying: 'Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may know him.'
(Judges 19:22)
that's the same wording in the hebrew, too, though the ending is slightly different because it's "him" instead of "them." and for that matter, it's used in the same sentance. you'll note, btw, that the person this levite is staying with quite rightly asks him where he's going, and that sort of thing -- he's the one being hospitable (at least for the first half), yet he's committing the same "crime" your version of the sodomites are.
quote:
And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the wayfaring man in the broad place of the city; and the old man said: 'Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?'
(Judges 19:17)
anyway, the host does the same thing lot does -- offers the mob his virgin daughter, with a twist. he also offers the guest's concubine.
quote:
But the men would not hearken to him; so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning; and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
(Judges 19:25)
they rape the concubine. note the use of the word "knew." so what did the mob want?
so yes, it
is used that way.
Now, you tell me: Do you notice the difference in the phrasing when the passage is talking about sex compared to when the passage is talking about interrogation?
no, actually, i don't. they are all some form of the verb
— followed by a noun refering to a person, generally with the specific
direct object signifier, and absent any preposition of dependent clause qualifier like
. it doesn't matter if it's
(and will know him) or
(and will know them) or
(and knew her) or
- (and knew eve) or
—- (not known a man). it's all actually the same usage grammatically, and i'm just changing around the tense and what noun i'm using. it's the same thing, just conjugated differently depending on what you want the sentence to say.
It's more than that and you know it! Oops! Did I just say you were going to have sex? "Know" means "have sex" in English, after all.
it's funny, because i went through that entire last post without ever once using the word "sex." yet, you seem to have understood me.
Then stop saying such, to use your word, "ridiculous" things.
that your strawmen of my argument are ridiculous is not something that is under my control.
On the contrary. It's the only reading that makes sense. A town which just had its ass handed to it in a war gets saved by a guy who humiliates them. There are overtures of a takeover though they are denied. The relative of the guy they're so worried about starts bringing in strangers to the town. THE ENTIRE CITY GOES TO INVESTIGATE. This is a prelude to "We just wanna have fun?" And if they are primed for sex, why on earth would they refuse it when Lot directly gives it to them?
no, not fun. humiliation. think about that one a little more. think "abu ghraib" not "freddy mercury."
You're argument boils down to: The entire town is outside Lot's door shouting, "We want sex! We want sex!" And when Lot comes out and says, "Here, have your sex," they suddenly get offended?
no, they are angry that lot means to protect the visitors they plan the humiliate.
™ Version 4.2
