Lets think about why I said what I did. Because my response exists in context as well. And the following is that context.
zipzip (post #150) writes:
in which most of the Jews' neighbors practiced appalling forms of incest, bestiality, ritual human sacrifice, forced ritual temple male/female prostitution/rape, and child murder
Here is a direct comparison of Isrealite practise to that of the surrounding peoples. Apparently the aim is to elevate the Isrealites above their neighbors. This was, in fact, the aim of the OT-- ie. tribal glue. I maintain that this elevated status is false, and the Isrealites were in most ways indistinguishable from their neighbors.
A similar statement is here:
In this context, much of Levitical law is amazing -- modern prohibitions against rape and incest, prohibitions against eating raw meat, the idea that you *should not touch* the discharge from a gaping, festering wound in another man's body, on and on.
This statement is simply untrue. Levitical law does not contain modern prohibitions against rape. Whatever prohibitions there are against incest are not unique. All cultures have prohibitions against incest. The same is true of raw meat to a lesser extent. The same is true of touching wounds, and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
1)It starts right off the bat with Adam n Eve's kids.
Well, you skipped this one, probably thinking it was included in the next point. Here we have Adam and Eve in an incestous-- well, stranger than that-- relationship. GOD made it this way. I don't think you can deny that. This is pretty much the same story you get with most mythology, pretty much world-wide, though I am sure there are exceptions. People apparently can't come up with a better story. The Isrealites, therefore, are just like their neighbors in this reguard.
John writes:
Lot's daughters take a ride on old dad in Gen. 19:30-38.
quote:
but in any case suggests that either the cultural and religious context of the events made such an opinion redundant or that the writer (and therefore God) is giving this event a pass.
You have a book in which God, supposedly, repeatedly complains and condemns the same things over and over again. Thus, your first option is nonsensical. Leaving only the second.
Read a novel. The characters are constantly being modified by just the sort of 'redundancies' which you claim are reasonably left out. It does not make sense. Skip a paragraph and we come back to this.
Another way to look at is that this book is supposed to be a guide given by God. Recounting the sins of the very founders of the culture but not taking any notice of it makes no sense. God does not hesitate to chastise and to punish even the prophets themselves, why does the actions of Lot's daughters not get a single tiny whimper? It doesn't make sense.
Yet another approach is to think about how people communicate. Choice of wording matters. Words not chosen, matter. That the account is 'dryly written' has meaning. How would you feel about a 'dry' account of the holocaust? Would YOU write a 'dry' account of such an event? Your analysis forgets such effects, or ignores them. Yet, such cannot be brushed aside if you want an honest analysis.
quote:
Since a number of OT passages are very clear on incest, drunkeness and whatever else went on here, and the audience was a Hebrew one, it is reasonable to assume that the automatic response would be strong disapproval.
We are talking about the actions of, or the tales of, those people from whom the Isrealites are supposed to learn these values, these reactions of approval or disapproval. We are talking about the source for this knowledge. Claiming that the knowledge ought to be there already and hence needn't be stated is contradictory.
quote:
The idea that God is giving this event a pass is not supportable given the local and/or global (textual) context in which this event occurs.
This has not been supported.
quote:
What we do note from the text is that this was a pairing of desperation rather than incestuous desire.
Obviously. I know of no civilization that practices incest as a general rule, and very few allow it in special cases. What you have done is argue that special circumstances make it ok. The same argument can be made for other cultures as well. Thus, the Isrealites are not special in this respect.
quote:
Lot's daughters were isolated from civilization after the destruction of Sodom, with no hopes for marriage or family.
This makes very little sense. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed, however, what happened to the rest of humanity? Now Gen. 19:30 has Lot leaving Zoar, a city to which he fled to avoid the destruction of S&G. So quite obviously there were people around. Not to mention that Abraham was near enough to see the smoke from the destruction. Gen. 19:28.
quote:
Their main concern is that they "preserve our family line through our father." Rather than waiting for God, they do this despicable and pitiful thing.
A despicable thing which in the midst of the mother of all morality tales, God doesn't bother to criticise. It is nonsense.
quote:
It is interesting to note that the outcome of this pairing takes the form of two sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi, which the text notes are the fathers of the Moabites and Ammonites.
Yes indeed. The tale slander. Now that does make sense.
http://www.hobrad.com/andl.htm writes:
Thus Genesis, in the story of Lot and his daughters, pulls a rather sly little trick. It matter-of-factly presents two troublesome neighbors of Israel--Moab and Ammon, lying east of the Jordan River--as children of incest, without passing any judgment on the three incestuous Hebrew parents.
quote:
God has the power to transform the outcome of any sin to produce good.
Hand waving.
quote:
Although this is a difficult text, it is straightforward in the sense that understanding the intended audience and the scriptural context clears up any apparent discrepancies. This is why, for instance, the original authors who wrote this text and generations of Jews studying the Torah have not stumbled over this passage.
People do not stumble because people 1)originally had no problem with it which is why God said nothing and 2)people apologize for it as you have done.
John writes:
2)Rueben sleeps with his dad's concubine in Gen 35:22.
This brings the sons of Jacob to twelve. God does, in Gen. 49:4, state that Rueben will not excel because of this; right after, in Gen 49:3, lavishing some hefty praise on him.
This passage appears to me to be straightforward.
You've demonstrated that Reuben was punished for his romp. It isn't the proscribed punishment however, which is death, at least for wives. I don't see a specific mention of sex with one's father's concubine.
But this wasn't the focus I had intended. What struck me is the peculiar juxtaposition of this incestous union and the beginning of the count of Jacob's sons. It doesn't make sense unless the two are related. Otherwise it just comes from nowhere. I have to conclude that some part of the story is missing.
At any rate, I accept the explaination.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2
