Dr Paul Allen

  Statement: The incest story of Lot and his daughters is borrowed from Zoroastrian traditions of the incest performed by Jam and Jamag, who were brother and sister. Jamag took advantage of the intoxicated state of her brother and had sex with him. What’s your response? Response: My response is that this is so obviously a false charge that the one making it ought to be embarrassed for even making this proposal.  I assume it is not you who came up with this, but found it at a Muslim website.   There are at least three reasons I reject this proposal: First of all, the story of Lot and his daughters is from around 1900 BC, and was almost certainly part of what became the biblical the Book of Genesis by well before 1000 BC.  Therefore, the Genesis account precedes the story of Jam and Jamag by several centuries.  The myth of Jam and Jamag comes from the Avesta, which scholars propose was produced somewhere around 500 BC and not written down until the early centuries AD.  There is no way fo

  Moab (Isa. 15:1–16:14) The Moabites were the product of Lot’s incestuous union with his daughter (Gen. 19:30–38) and were the avowed enemies of the Jews (Num. 25; 31; Deut. 23:3). The plight of Moab (Isa. 15:1–9). Within three years (16:14), this prophecy against Moab would be fulfilled with great national lamentation. At least fourteen different references to lamentation occur in this chapter: weeping, wailing, baldness, sackcloth, crying out, etc. The people fled to their temples and prayed to their gods, but to no avail (15:2, NIV). Even a day of national humiliation did not stop Assyria from invading Moab and ravaging the land. Advancing armies often stopped up the springs and watercourses, and left the land in desolation (vv. 6–7). Where there was water in Moab, it was stained with blood, so great was the carnage (v. 9). How could the weak Moabites ever hope to defeat the great Assyrian lion? The plea of Moab (Isa. 16:1–5). The one place the Assyrians could not conquer was Jerus

“And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan , that it was well watered everywhere. . . . Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.” ( Genesis 13:10-11 ) Some otherwise righteous folks are unable to handle wealth. Lot and Abram had become so wealthy “that they could not dwell together” ( Genesis 13:6 ), and Lot fell into the classic temptation—loving “all that is in the world” ( 1 John 2:16 ). Beginning by pitching “his tent toward Sodom” ( Genesis 13:12 ), Lot later “dwelt in Sodom, and his goods” ( Genesis 14:12 ). And even though he was “vexed” by the “filthy” behavior of those with whom he was living ( 2 Peter 2:7-8 ), Lot finally “sat in the gate of Sodom”—a Hebrew idiom for holding a political place of power in the city ( Genesis 19:1 ). We are told that Lot was a just and righteous man ( 2 Peter 2:7-8 ). But ungodly choices always produce tragic results. When the angels arrive

English: Abraham Sees Sodom in Flames, circa 1896–1902, by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (French, 1836-1902) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) There are, in our day, two principle competing views on how to answer this question. Because we live in a world where those committing sexual perversion have become a protected class , certain circles of the church have rushed to accommodate them. The up and coming theory, however anti-intuitive it might be is this- God destroyed Sodom not because it was a city given over to perversion, but because it was a city that failed to exercise hospitality. God's wrath was poured out not because the men of Sodom, pounding on Lot's door, wanted to sexually assault the angels, but because the angels were not treated with grace and compassion. It wasn't what they wanted to take, but what they failed to give. The more conservative wing of the church, of course, takes an older view, a more intuitive view. The narrative here goes like this- Sodom