The First Questions In The Bible

Bailey writes:

quote:

---

It was curious why Elohim sent them from the Garden keeping them from the Tree of Life.

---

No, it wasn't. The Bible directly says why:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:God panics because Adam and Eve are one step away from being just like him.

quote:

---

In Genesis, knowing good and evil causes Elohim to do good.

---

No, not quite. God recognizes that he made a mistake in killing everything on earth, apologizes, and swears that he will never do it again. Abraham rebukes god and calms him down lest he perform another rash act.And in Exodus, god is continually rebuked by Moses, once again calming him down and stopping him from going off half-cocked and doing something stupid.You're absolutely right that just because you know good and evil doesn't mean you always do good. Not even god always does good. In fact, as the Bible directly states, god is the source of everything, good [i][b]and[/i][/b] evil.

quote:

---

It’s clear now, from the text, God attempted to save them from themselves for their own good.

---

Then why on earth did he put them in the garden with the Tree of Knowledge? If you don't want your kid knocking over the delicate vase, don't leave him alone in the room with it.

quote:

---

I used to think the Tree of Knowledge led the lovebirds to know the difference between good and evil.

---

As well you should as that's what the text directly and specifically says:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, [I][B]Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:[/i][/b] and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

quote:

---

There is no evidence they could tell what was good from bad.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the very first thing they do indicates that they knew good from bad.What was the very first thing they panic over after eating from the tree? You'd think it would have been having eaten from the tree since that was the only thing they were told not to do. And yet, something else presses itself upon them so forcefully that they run and hide. It's the same thing the Bible directly states just before the serpent comes along that they were not ashamed of.Clearly, they did understand the difference between the two because they were immediately ashamed of something they had done wrong.

quote:

---

p.s. I have no support for this

---

You're not kidding. The very text of the Bible directly contradicts you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

why do people die?

---

Because they do. Everything dies. Adam and Eve were going to die even if they never ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Remember, the punishment of Eve is that her childbirth pain will "increase," not that she will suddenly become fertile and start having children. That means that the cycle of life was already in place.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

not neccessarily. "knowledge" is also a biblical euphemism for sex. no sex, no life-cycle.

---

Yes, necessarily. The only place the tree is called the "tree of knowledge" is Genesis 2:17 and the word used is from the root "da`ath," not "yada."And while "yada" can mean sex, it must be phrased in a specific way in order to do so. "Knowledge of good and evil" is not the correct phrasing and thus, it cannot mean "knowledge of sex."It is this same error that leads people to think that when the people of Sodom order Lot to bring out the men "so that we may know them," they're talking about having sex. The phrasing isn't appropriate for an indication of sex and when Lot does offer them sex as a distraction, they immediately rebuke him.We cannot force a misunderstood English pun onto Hebrew.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Bailey responds to me:

quote:

---

The tree of Life is regarded as the tree of Wisdom

---

No, it isn't. The Tree of Knowledge is the the Tree of Wisdom. That's why it's called the Tree of "Knowledge." The root word is "da'ath," meaning "knowledge," "perception," "skill," "discernment," "understanding," "wisdom."Your quote from Proverbs isn't referencing Genesis.

quote:

---

As long as they didn”t turn into jealous, murderous, adulterous first, they were free to eat from this tree all along

---

That's not what the Bible says:Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.I fail to see how "thou shalt not eat of it" is interpreted to mean, "go ahead and eat of it."By the way..."adulterous"? They were the only two people in existence. Who on earth, literally, is there to commit adultery with?

quote:

---

Even if they had the ability to distinguish between relative good and bad, which is supported no where in Judaic Scripture

---

Nice try, but that's my argument: Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree. Therefore, it is impossible to declare their eating from the tree to be a "sin." Sin requires knowledge of good and evil which Adam and Eve didn't have since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.They were sinning up a storm long before the serpent entered the picture and yet, nobody bats an eye. Why? Because they were innocent (not stupid) and thus, their actions could not be considered "sin." So what's so special about this act that innocence isn't good enough?

quote:

---

are you sure Elohim wasn't concerned with them possessing immortality without the desire and ability to make the right choice accordingly based on benevolence as opposed to malevolence?

---

Huh? They just managed to get that ability, having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. So why does god panic over them eating from the Tree of Life? If your interpretation is true, nothing in the story makes sense. Why would god tell them not to do something he wants them to do? When they do it, why would he punish them rather than allowing them to take the next step he wants them to take?

quote:

---

You are making a huge assumption something was differentiated between good and evil after the fruit of knowledge incident

---

As well I should since the text directly says so:Genesis 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
3:7: And the eyes of them both were openedSo since the text directly says that something was differentiated, why should we interpret that to mean something other than just that?Remember, god backs up the assertion:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

quote:

---

There is a huge difference between having knowledge of two things and being able to differentiate two things.

---

Precisely. That's my point: Adam and Eve were told, "Don't touch!" but they didn't understand what that meant. In order to do that, you need to have knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve don't have that since they haven't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, the very first thing they do indicates that they knew good from bad.

---

​

Empty speculation.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Have you not read Genesis 3:7? There's a reason I'm not quoting that particular verse specifically, but it directly contradicts you.

quote:

---

What does Adam and Eve being ashamed of their private bits, making aprons to protect their bits from shrubbery, and wanting privacy because they're naked have to do with the ability to know good from evil?

---

Because it is wrong to be naked. After all, a previous verse points out that they should have been ashamed but were not.

quote:

---

Who cares what the tree’s named anyway.

---

Because it is what helps us distinguish it from other trees. If you're going to let it be an Anything Tree, its functions and powers being whatever you want it to be at the time, neither more nor less, then there's no point in continuing.

quote:

---

Study, study, study and kindly stick to what the Good Book says.

---

Indeed.Why is it that when discussing what the text of Genesis 3 says, I've been the only one quoting it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And while "yada" can mean sex, it must be phrased in a specific way in order to do so. "Knowledge of good and evil" is not the correct phrasing and thus, it cannot mean "knowledge of sex."

---

​

no, "sex" would replace "knowledge." so, "sex for good and bad purposes." clearly, it can be used both ways. "be fruitful and multiply" vs raping outsiders.

---

But you're doing a simple substitution as if that were ever a valid thing to do. When a word has multiple meanings, context and conventional linguistic constructions will tell you which meaning is meant. You cannot simply substitute one definition for another and expect to have a valid interpretation.Nothing in the phrasing of Genesis 2:17 indicates that it has anything to do with sex. The specific phrasing, down to the wording, can only mean concepts of knowledge and comprehension.By your logic, if I were to say, "You're screwed, and I don't mean that in any sexual way," it would be valid to interpret it to mean, "You're going to be sexually assaulted," since "screwed" means "sex" in English. Never mind everything else in the sentence that directly contradicts that interpretation, "screwed" means "sex" and so that's what it means.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is this same error that leads people to think that when the people of Sodom order Lot to bring out the men "so that we may know them," they're talking about having sex.

---

​

no, the mistake there is that "men" (in both "men of the city" and "men that cam to you last night") does not actually specify a gender, because in hebrew grammar a group of men and women takes the masculine gender.

---

Um, it can't be both? Besides, you've just made a non sequitur. We're not talking about the description of the crowd outside the door (which the Bible directly states is the entire town). We're talking about the specific wording that people claim means "so that we may have sex with them."It doesn't mean that. The wording that is used in that passage is used over a hundred times elsewhere in the Bible and is never interpreted to mean "sex." What's so special about this one?In order to get "yada" to mean "sex," it has to be phrased in a particular manner. If you look at earlier passages in Genesis such as "Adam knew his wife," you find that they aren't phrased anything like the passage of "so that we may know them." Thus, the idea that "yada" in the particular context of the story of Sodom is a story about sex is simply not justified by the text.

quote:

---

it's not about homosexuality, it's about inhospitality.

---

Indeed. For a whole host of reasons. One of which is that neither the word "sex" nor any phrasing that could possibly be rationally interpreted to mean "sex" appears.

quote:

---

it's really, really odd that you would read "i have two virgin daughters" as an invitation to sex, but not a well known euphemism.

---

But that's just it: It's not a "well-known euphemism." It doesn't mean that in the slightest. If I say that I want you to meet my parents so you can "know who they are," I don't mean for you to have sex with them, even though "know" means "sex" in English. In order to get it to mean "sex," you have to phrase it in a certain way and that phrase is not it.The reason why we know that Lot means for the crowd to have sex with his daughters is because he directly says so. Note, he uses "yada" to mean sex and he phrases it specifically to mean sex: "which have not known man."

quote:

---

quote:

---

We cannot force a misunderstood English pun onto Hebrew.

---

​

on the contrary, the english "pun" comes directly from hebrew, via literal translations, especially the KJV.

---

But that's not what the Hebrew means. The exact phrasing used in that passage is used elsewhere in the Bible and is never interpreted to mean "sex." What's so special about this time?

quote:

---

but gen 19 is very much about sex.

---

Huh? Every single sentence in Gen 19 is about sex?Genesis 19:1: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;That sentence is about sex? Lot was going to have sex with the angels? They were going to have sex with him? The angels "came" to Sodom?So if it is possible that some of the utterances in the chapter aren't about sex, is it not possible that the specific utterance, "so that we may know them," might be one of those that isn't about sex?

quote:

---

reading every instance of "know" as meanign sex would be wrong, but in some cases it's rather clear cut.

---

Indeed. And Gen 19:5 ain't one of 'em.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

but this is not some interpretation i've made up, and i don't even particularly agree with it. it does, however, exist.

---

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.

quote:

---

what the heck else does it mean?

---

So that we may [I][B]KNOW[/i][/b] 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?Yes, I agree that there are people who think that the sin of Sodom is male-male sex. After all, we call non-penis/vagina sex "sodomy." But they're wrong. The text clearly indicates that the reason why the entire town is outside Lot's house has nothing to do with sex. The only way to come to that conclusion is to force a false interpretation onto a single word in defiance of all context surrounding the scene.

quote:

---

look, it's the same word that used when "adam knew his wife" and when "cain knew his wife" and when every other person in the torah bumps uglies with someone. is the grammar messing you up?

---

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. [I][B]THAT PHRASING IS NOT USED IN GENESIS 19:5[/i][/b]. 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?In English, the word "know" can mean "have sex," too. But in order to make it mean that, you have to phrase it correctly. If I were to say to you, "You've known me for how long?" nobody would interpret that to mean "You've had sex with me for how long?" To simply substitute one meaning for another is known as "equivocation" and is a logical error.

quote:

---

it's not that this is what it means all the time -- it's that it's a euphemism.

---

Indeed. But euphemisms have to be phrased correctly. Here's the passage where Adam is first described having sex with Eve:Genesis 4:1: ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-a.do.nai:And here's the infamous passage of Sodom:Genesis 19:5: va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam:And here's where Lot tries to entice the crowd into having sex with his daughters:Genesis 19:8: hi.ne-na li she.tei va.not a.sher lo-yad.u ish o.tsi.a-na et.hen a.lei.khem va.a.su la.hen ka.tov be.ei.nei.khem rak la.a.na.shim ha.el al-ta.a.su da.var ki-al-ken ba.u be.tsel ko.ra.ti: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?

quote:

---

the only difference is that it's phrased in a future tense!

---

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.

quote:

---

i'm really disappointed you would even try to distort what i said to mean that.

---

Then stop saying such, to use your word, "ridiculous" things.

quote:

---

no other reading adequately expresses something worthy of being considered inhospitable.

---

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. [I][B]THE ENTIRE CITY GOES TO INVESTIGATE.[/i][/b] 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?Genesis 19:9: And they said: 'Stand back.' And they said: 'This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs play the judge; now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.' And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door.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?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

just out of curiousity, can you find me a single source that says the "know" in genesis 19 means anything other sexual intercourse?

---

It's been too long since I've read the original citation. Religioustolerance.org has a quotation: Unfortunately, they have lost the reference.The Apostolic Restoration Mission also concurs: [emphasis in the original]

quote:

---

i think you'll be able to find a multitude of sources that say it's not about homosexuality, or that it's about inhospitality -- but even those don't deny the inhabitants of sodom mean to rape the visitors.

---

Indeed. And those who say so are all wrong. The text clearly indicates otherwise. It's only because we have been told incessantly that it's about sex that we think that it has to be about sex. This is the same attitude that leads field biologists, when watching two same-sex animals in the wild having sex, to claim that what they're doing is "dominance ritual" or "greeting behaviour" or anything but "having sex."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

your argument was that the life-cycle was already in place

---

And I provided the specific references from the Bible to justify it: The punishment of Eve is that the pains of her childbearing will be increased, not that she will suddenly become fertile and start having children. Ergo, she was already fertile and was going to have children. God panics that Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. Ergo, they were going to die at some point.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because they were merely innocent, not stupid. They knew they weren't wearing anything...they just didn't know it was wrong. When you go to a foreign country, you become an innocent. You know exactly what you're doing...you just don't know that it's wrong.

quote:

---

so yes, it is used that way.

---

I never said it wasn't. For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say it before you remember it?Yes, "yada" in Hebrew has two meanings, one of which is to have sex. But, in order for it to mean "have sex," it has to be phrased in a certain way. If that phrasing isn't there, then it is wrong to substitute that meaning for the more direct meaning.The word "screw" has multiple meanings in English. One of which is to have sex. But if we're talking about how you forgot to turn in your report, my looking at you and saying, "You're screwed!" is not an indication that you're going to have sex. And if in the process you get upset and retort, "Screw you!" that is not an actual request for me to go and have sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

And you have misunderstood me. The word "know" in English also means "to have sex." Therefore, I was poking fun at your insistence that "yada," which means "know" in Hebrew, necessarily means "to have sex" when context is clear that it means anything but. And since I used the word "know," that must mean I meant "have sex," by your logic.The point you're missing is that the phrasing used in Gen 19:5 is more than just "it's in the future tense." It is phrased as a request, not a demand or a declaration. Don't you think that would have some bearing on how we ought to interpret the passage?

quote:

---

no, not fun. humiliation. think about that one a little more. think "abu ghraib" not "freddy mercury."

---

Um, did you bother to read Genesis 14? The word "humiliate" is my term to describe what Abraham did. You're trying to make "humiliate" another term for "have sex." Abraham did not have sex with the Bera, king of Sodom. Instead, he maligned the integrity as a just ruler:Genesis 14:23: That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:In short, "I'm not going to be in debt to you."

quote:

---

no, they are angry that lot means to protect the visitors they plan the humiliate.

---

"Humiliate"? Where did "humiliate" come into it? Surely you're not going to trot out that canard that somehow it was a ritual for strangers to submit to being anally raped when visiting a town, are you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

be careful of religioustolerance.org. they are not very discriminant in their use of sources.

---

(*chuckle*) Spoken like a fundamentalist. You seem to have misunderstood their point: They want to present what all sides think, even those that some people consider ludicrous. So of course they're going to present conflicting reports. They even directly state that their sources conflict.That's the point.

quote:

---

but the problem is that when it's retold in judges, it means rape.

---

No, it doesn't. It means the same thing: Bring them out so that we may know (not "have sex with") them. He then tries to bribe them with sex and they deny the first round but take it the second time.The setup in both is the same:1) Stranger comes to town.
2) Locals want to know what's going on.
3) Attempt to bribe locals is made.In Genesis, the crowd doesn't bite. In Judges, they do.

quote:

---

why would lot feel the need to protect his guests, if they simply wanted to make sure the guests weren't looters?

---

Because inhospitality doesn't mean "rape." Just because Lot knows that the town is going to mistreat his guests doesn't mean he thinks they're going to rape them.

quote:

---

why would he offer them sex, if he didn't think that's what they wanted?

---

Because if you don't want someone to do action A, you try to distract them with action B. If I don't want you to take my money, do I give you my money? No, I give you something else that I think will distract you.

quote:

---

rape as a mean to humiliate the visitors, get them leave, and to tell their looter friends not to go there.

---

Huh? Where on earth do you get that idea? "Humiliate"? Where did that come from? Tell me you're not trying to toss out the canard that strangers were routinely subjected to rape in order to sojourn, are you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:

---

they just wanted to say hi, but hey, free pussy. might as well, right?

---

Huh? Who said they "wanted to say hi"? I distinctly recall saying they wanted to interrogate the strangers. I don't know why this is so difficult to remember. You seem to be saying that if the crowd outside the door was up to no good, then it necessarily is the case that the no good they were up to can only be rape, despite the fact that the text doesn't imply that at all.Surely you're not about to bring up the canard that strangers to town were routinely expected to submit themselves to rape, are you?Do you truly not understand what the word "distraction" means?

quote:

---

nevermind that this particular verse describes them as "perverse" beforehand?

---

And why does that mean rape? Be specific. As we know, the people of Sodom were also "perverse," but the sin of Sodom wasn't sex.

quote:

---

yeah, that has nothing to do with it.

---

Who said it had nothing to do with it? I challenge you to find me a single quote where I said or even implied that the population were nice, innocent people.I'm simply asking why it is you seem to think that if the town is considered bad, they must necessarily be a rape gang.

quote:

---

no, raping visitors means inhospitality.

---

Indeed, but you haven't shown that the town was intent upon raping the visitors. Surely you aren't about to drag out the canard that visitors to strange towns were routinely subjected to rape, are you?

quote:

---

er, no. that's not the right analogy. it's more like, "here's a hundred bucks, don't rob the bank i work at."

---

So please explain why the townspeople of Sodom, when offered the very thing they wanted, refused it. If they were there for sex, why did they become outrageously offended at Lot's offer of sex, declare him to be a traitor, and announce that they were going to do worse to him than they had ever planned on doing to the strangers?Surely you're not about to say that strangers were routinely raped when going to new cities, are you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.