Book of Genesis passage translation (moral, punishment, Earth, Leviticus)

[GodLovesUs]

Please translate this passage:


19:31 The firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.

19:32 Come, let's make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve our father's seed."

19:33 They made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father. He didn't know when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34 It came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine again, tonight. You go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve our father's seed."

19:35 They made their father drink wine that night also. The younger arose, and lay with him. He didn't know when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36 Thus both of Lot's daughters were with child by their father.


To me it looks like, if the Bible is the word of God then adultery was allowed. It makes me think that if the bible came from a supreme being there seems to be a lot of mistakes that were noted since later on Thou shall not commit adultery is one of the Ten commandments. Please don't tell me its needed because later on in the bible it says the ends does not justify the means. The means of repopulating the earth by father daughter relationship was accepted. I did not see that there was a punishment for this act.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by GodLovesUs

To me it looks like, if the Bible is the word of God then adultery was allowed.

I certainly don't think the Bible is the word of God. But strictly speaking, there's no adultery here, because none of the parties was married. The two daughters were unmarried, and Lot was a widower. (BTW, I think the main concern about adultery was prohibiting intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman wasn't such a big deal. The idea was to protect men's "property" rights over women.)

Anyway, what we do have here is still two conniving daughters and a drunken father who have incestuous relationships. Does the Bible condone that? Not really. If anything, this story was probably concocted as a slur on the Moabites and Ammonites, to show that competing nations around Israel had shameful origins.

[Aqualung]

I'll give you the Joseph Smith Translation of those verses, which I think is correct.

31 "and the firsborn dealt wickedly and said..." and 35 "and they did wickedly and made..."

This translation shows that God thought they were doing wickedly. The key is whether or not you believe it.

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Adultery is a married person having sex with someone other than their spouse.
Fornication is having sex outside of wedlock.
Incest is having sex with a close family member.

What we have in the passage above was a case of incestuous fornication, which is trey creepy, but which I cannot say, from reading the passage, whether it was condoned or condemned by God. I recently read that very passage as I have decided to read the Bible cover to cover, and I was creeped out by this passage, as I am sure you were.

The early chapters of the Bible are filled with incest, adultery and genocide. If one accepts the story of Noah and The Flood, then we have yet another case of incest, cause, there wasn't anyone else left alive except for one family. After Adam and Eve start producing progeny, then you are going to have lots and lots of incestuous inbreeding to get the human species going.

Its pretty obvious to me, that these stories cannot be taken literally. The stories from the Bible can, and often do, teach us important lessons about life, but I think you are going to have a difficult time if you read the Bible literally. But, it seems to me, even accepting these stories as figurative for the purpose of teaching life lessons, that a story of incest such as the one quoted above, is fairly bereft of moral teaching, IMHO.

B.

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I'll give you the Joseph Smith Translation of those verses, which I think is correct.

31 "and the firsborn dealt wickedly and said..." and 35 "and they did wickedly and made..."

This translation shows that God thought they were doing wickedly. The key is whether or not you believe it.

Exactly. I read the same from my Bible.

Read the book of Leviticus...God makes it clear that such actions are NOT acceptable.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

Exactly. I read the same from my Bible.

REally? What bible?

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

REally? What bible?

New King James Version. I probably should have said interpret as opposed to read...I meant interpret.

[Aqualung]

Oh. That definitely makes a world of difference!

[GodLovesUs]

So which books of the bible is worth reading first because I started with Revelations, Genesis, then Kings and all the books just focuses on mistakes by God, Genocide, banishment, etc. One quote is that the tree of knowledge was suppose to give humans tha ability to know good and evil so why would God forbid it to be eaten from (if this is true). These books just made a Supreme being look like an inferior being since it had mistakes and the only thing that it can do to salvage the mistake was to end life, I just don't get it. Thanks.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

This translation shows that God thought they were doing wickedly. The key is whether or not you believe it.

Is G-d ever wrong?