Talk:Lot (biblical person)

Content

This is "Sunday School" stuff. The book is Genesis, it needs chapter and verse reference; the midrash traditions are separate and should be identified; what is the use made of Lot? what of Lot's Wife? Are these etymologies of Moab and Amon any more than conventions? What use is made of Lot in the New Testament and the Qu'ran Qur'an?
Wetman 13:39, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) & spell-corrected without signing by Jacobolus (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2005

Pictures

Im removing offensive picture of lot having sex with his daughters. It deeply offends me to have a nude picture pertaining to the bible, let alone, one of people having sex. It makes it seem to an unknowing reader, that he wanted to have sex with his daughters! Maybe, the pictures can be moved under the text. An unknowing reader is then able to understand the paintings. A very good website on bible and culture is http://www.statenvertaling.net, de Dutch translation of the Bible and comparable to the King James Version (KJV). It has a lot of pictures.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubberbrein2 21:43 & :51, 14 March 2006

E.g, Lot and his daughters:
http://www.statenvertaling.net/beeld/lotdochters_grt.jpg (the same category as the removed pictures.
But other examples include:

• The paintings of the Dutch painter Rembrand; e.g. http://www.statenvertaling.net/kunst/rembrandt-bijbel.html

--Blubberbrein2 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To say that you've removed something because it offends your sensibilites smacks of POV to me. The bible story says that Lot had sex with his daughters. Artists have depicted this event. Therefore, the history of this artistic theme belongs in this article and the picture should be included. If you take issue with the subject or its inclusion, you should call up the author of J and have a conversation with him/her.
--64.230.78.95 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree so I have put the image back. I think it illustrates very well how even in the C17 rational people were able to make fun of these stupid myths
Albatross2147 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrad placed their contrib, below, at the left margin, dismissing Albatross's good example of indenting one notch further than the contrib they were commenting on. One assumes that they were responding to Alb, in saying "It may seem to you that this is just a myth" (a term Alb last mentioned), and i've indented Wrad accordingly.^{--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)}

Watch the tone here. If a picture is worth a thousand words, than what this picture seems to be saying may be POV. He is right, it looks like he wants sex with his daughters, which is not what the text we have says. I think we should have another picture. It may seem to you that this is just a myth, but to others it isn't, so be a little more neutral in your tone, please. Whether or not you think it is a myth, this picture portrays a POV which is somewhat unbalanced. Perhaps what is needed is a more neutral picture at the top and a discussion at the bottom (with the current picture) of the controversy of Lot.
Wrad 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   One of the tones that editors are well advised to avoid on a talk page is looking for their personal beliefs to be insulated from implicit criticism. PAs are prohibited, but if an editor can't distinguish an arguably relevant criticism of a belief they happen to hold (or assume someone else holds), from a personal attack on them or the other, they'll find little support for that from their colleagues here. PoVs on many things need expression on the talk pages.
   In this case, i see no evidence that Alb was trying to insult any WP colleague, and agree that uniquely 2nd-millenium critiques (explicit or implicit) of backward-millenia notions are relevant to what our third-millenium readers what to know about Lot has meant and now means. I'd like to see evidence that that particular piece of implicit critique is attested to by experts (and not just Alb's OR), before a more neutral version of Alb's assertion goes into the article, but their "proof by blatant assertion" is a step toward possibly desirable article content, which is what we have this talk page for.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Picture in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(Bible)#Homosexuality is pornography picture? Azmi 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.131.203 (talk)

   Your question may be about whether a particular image is pornographic or not, or about expressing surprise that someone else considered it to be. No one seems to have said "pornography" or "pornographic" before you, so the question is a little odd. Further, a famous American judge said of "hard-core pornography" "I know it when I see it", which presumably means that unless everyone agrees about what it is, either some people lie about what they find it to be, or it's just a matter of opinion.
   In this specific case, there was at the time you wrote Image:Lot and his Daughters.jpg

Hendrik Goltzius' 1616 painting Lot and his daughters shows Lot being seduced by his two daughters.

in the section you targeted (and IMO oddly so located). YMMV, but my parents would have described it as clearly serious art (and thereby implicitly not pornographic). There were humorous things, comparable to it in anatomical explicitness, in their home when i was a child, which were described instead as "for grownups" (perhaps bcz the humor meant they were not serious art), but i don't think they considered any of those pornographic either.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

Please Please Pleaseeeee Remove These Nude-Sex Picture !!! I'M Infiteing someone to islam .. & He See the Nude photos !!!!! Why Gosh !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.139.132 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   "Please remove"? (That portion is comprehensible.) No way; previous discussion, much of it further down the page, clarifies why not.
   "These Nude-Sex Picture[s]" must refer to the 15-image gallery of fine art, that, it turns out, the IP removed repeatedly that day (sometimes replacing with Qur'an text in Arabic), eventually getting a last-warning against vandalism but not a block. See the final bot-reversion of the removal for the images. (There are no photos, except in the sense that the paintings, 280-480 years old, are likely to have been photographically reproduced on their way to digital form.)
    "Infiteing [someone] to [something]"? That's not even recklessly misspelled English. (Neither "infighting", "inviting", "infesting", nor "infiniting" -- which some fool might use to mean "making infinite" -- makes any sense of it.) I'll be surprised if anyone can come up with the contributor's intention -- unless the contrib'r learned nearly all their English watching movies and reading ads, and someone comes along, whose native language happens to match that of the contrib'r, and who's familiar with the errors that such people make in English.
   The contrib'r may want to ask a friend for help, and repost something that makes a more detailed response feasible.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the Bible is fine and people need to accept that not everyone agrees with their views. However, calling it 'stupid myths' is not helpful. Anyyway, there's surely nothing stupid or unlikely about incest?86.151.0.212 (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Salt

Salt is not hard; see Halite. Someone should fix this statement of fact to a (mis)statement of interpretation.

This 'pillar of salt' allows for a lot of interpretation as the opinions vary. That is why it is in another section

I fixed the statement about salt being "as hard as the hardest of rocks," it is indeed one of the softest in relation to most rocks. Furthermore, I also agree in incorporating the Qu'ran's version of Lot (Luth) I'd suggest simply filling in the information that differs where needed, by simply writing "according to the Bible" and "according to the Qu'ran" 142.35.4.130 02:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename

see discussion in Talk:Lut. --Striver 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

This needs to be WP:CITEd or otherwise it looks like a combination of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Megapixie 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics have attacked the story of Lot in the Bible as supporting rape, homophobia, racism, and disrespect for the victims of incest. They point to the following:

• Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped. The text nowhere condemns this act. The text implies that one's (male) guests are to be valued more highly than one's daughters. Some also see in the text a suggestion that raping women is a cure for homosexuality, and that homosexuality is a worse sin than the rape of women
• Some argue that the depiction of the citizens of Sodom and Gommorah is a ethnic slur against the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. Likewise, in making the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites the descendants of incest, critics see another ethnic slur against the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. This slur, they argue, forms part of the foundation for the genocide of the Ammonite ethnic group repeatedly advocated in the Old Testament
• Some also point to the portrayal of the men of Sodom is a slur on homosexuals
• Many find the story that Lot was seduced by his daughters highly implausible. To many, it seems far more likely that Lot would rape his own daughters, and then attempt to shift the blame on to them for what he did. From a feminist perspective, this is in line with patriarchial society which seeks to make victims of rape and incest responsible for their abuse, rather than the perpetrators

Note that some of the above criticisms (e.g. the story of incest) do not apply to the Islamic account, since Islam denies the incest occurred. However, other criticisms, e.g. Lot's willingness to offer his daughters to the men of Sodom, apply to the Islamic account also.

I looked up some citations and added the rape and homophobia stuff, but I couldn't find anything on racism and incest. Wrad 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole section, as it stands currently, seems to need a bit of revision so that it becomes coherent and understandable. Maybe it should be re-tooled to a "Critical View" heading with the varying interpretations of these events all laid out clearly. It is something of a mess. Rshaulcolm 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objections to making it better. Wrad 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe change “The Story of Lot in the Bible” to “Lot in The Judeo-Christian Bible” and have beneath it “Lot in The Qur'an” and “The Joseph Smith Translation”. Then just cut and paste the Islamic and LDS view with whatever cosmetic alterations are necessary . By the by, there is additional material for discussion on the subject of how the Qur'an treats Lot (as well as his wife), but that is probably best left for the main article on the subject. So then a change of “Homosexual View” to “Critical Viewpoints” or something similar. I would suggest that any discussion of the people of Sodom in 19:5 be placed within Sodom and Gomorrah, rather than on a page dealing with Lot specifically. A discussion of the implications of the text should probably be focused on Lot ‘s actions and those of his family, rather than external players who have their own Wikipedia entry. All that is left to do is to write about 19:8 and 30-38 in a readable and unbiased fashion that mentions the varying interpretations. Rshaulcolm 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it to match with some of your suggestions. Wrad 08:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that the story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather it was meant as a parable about the importance of honoring guests. For example, this point of view says that Lot didn't offer his daughters to the crowd because it was better that women were raped than men... He offered them because it was better that his own daughters were raped than to have guests in his house be dishonored. The article doesn't really mention this perspective, so it may be something to look into... 02 Jan 2008

Pass the salt

I added this:

"Finally, it has been suggested this is a metaphor meaning she was made barren, in allusion to salting fields making them infertile."

I recall reading this someplace, but I'm damned if I can recall where, or I'd cite the source... Can somebody confirm?
Trekphiler 13:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting until we have a source before adding it.
199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOT and LUT shouldent be merged

dont merge my history with the quran
lot and his story and its interpretations are part of the bible and of the jewish history and not the quran
"lut" can have its own page and the islamic view of him
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash.killer (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 November 2006

Can u tell me what is your problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.17.131 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

'midrash' duh!

i misread/thought 'mishnah' (spot the gentile). i assume it is from comentary on Tanakh? can someone provide more specific reference? → bsnowball 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding Lot's Ability to Fornicate

I am completely unsure where this material is derived from. The source material he cites doesn't even mention anything in regards to this. I have never heard this discussed before in any context, and can only presume it's some sort of joke or personal response to the subject matter at hand. I think it should really be removed. Rshaulcolm 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pillar of Salt": Figure of speech Idiom

Lot's wife did not actually turn into a pillar of salt. Its a figure of speech that is virtually equivilent to an idiom (figure of speech) used in the USA, when we refer to a person "kicking the bucket". Because we say they kicked the bucket, does not make them into a bucket kicker. It means they died. At least one authority has written about this figure of speech. Bishop Pillai. The name of his book, which book, I'm not sure of. I copied his comments to my bible and sold the books. He wrote that the figure means Lot's wife had a stroke or heart attack: died. There is a list of Biblical Figures at the bottom of this page Figures of speech in the bible from Dr. E. W. Bulligner. "Idiom" is the figure from Bullinger's appendix that fits this situation explained in detail by Pillai.Mdvaden 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Found this page mentioning Dr. Pillai - the idiom is in one of the books listed About Pillai.Mdvaden 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but "pillar of salt" isn't mentioned on either of the pages referenced above. "Pillar of Salt" is a figure of speech now, but only because it was ased in the Bible. I haven't seen anything to indicate that it was a figure of speech in biblical times. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Translation

I don't wish to be rude, but does Joseph Smith offer any actual textual evidence for translating the passage in the opposite sense to the way everyone else does? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the article. It's just what they believe. You could ask the same question of the Koran. This article attempts to express a variety of beliefs, not critique those beliefs. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia isn't a pornography Website, but who's upload the Image:Lot and his Daughters.jpg. That image is pornoghraphy (I can't speak English. Sorry) Azmi1995 07:35, 9 Februari 2008 (UTC) 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of information, pornography is information. Also it's art not pornography, pornography is created with the intent of sexual gratification. This is a biblical story scene, what makes this scene pornographic and jesus dying on the cross not? The daughters are not engaging in sex, merely lounging. Not looking out at the viewer or implying being owned witch is a major distinction between art and porn, and the context isn't meant to gratify but disgust and intrigue the viewer.Sanitycult (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not porn. Cloths are covering everything you wouldn't see in any other classical painting. It's a work of art. It's based on a biblical event. The artist goes out of his way to cover things up. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Rename

I've been correcting links on various pages from Lot (a disambig page) to the proper articles. I'm seeing a lot of links from religious but non-Christian articles to this page. I propose that this page be renamed to Lot (religious figure) and Lot (Bible) be redirected here. Anyone agree/disagree? Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the incest

It is NOT because they want to re-populate the earth (see "it was their responsibility to bear children"). It is because they wanted to offer a filiation (so the incest is far more intriguing and the gender "bias" of the times has to be understood: daughters were meaningless to "carry the name"). My level of English is not enough to change an entire paragraph but it has to be checked and changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemkem (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Expressions

"Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8), but the men were not interested. Consequently, an Arabic expression for homosexuals is derived from the name for the people of Lot or Lut(in Arabic).i.e., Luti."

Can we have this Arabic expression explained? how does one get homosexual from then not wanting to sleep with his daughters? are we assuming that they didn't want to sleep with any women but men instead? they turned down his daughters because they had originally wanted to rape the angels. are we to understand the angels were male? sayraht

The Bible says they are men specifically. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Koran is Bible???

I think this article should be renamed to, for example, Lot (religion), because Koran is NOT part of bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.74.28 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The word bible (specifically lower-cased) can be used to refer to any sacred writing. It an also be used to refer to a book about a particular subject which is accepted as authoritative in regards to that subject. 142.167.178.153 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

rename article

Please consider renaming this article Lot, son of Haran as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New changes

An editor has added multiple pictures of the Lot and his daughters, when it is only mentioned once in the middle of the article. This is an undue weight violation. Such a change is simply spamming images. MCSKY (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I've removed the two additional images, still leaving one. MCSKY (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi MCSKY. I had a look at WP:UNDUE and I don't see that it is relevant to the issue that bothers you. It is about minority views on a topic - eg if there was a minority view that Lot and his daughters were from outer space that would not get much room in the article. In any case, I don't see there to be a problem with the images being in the article. Maybe an editor will add some sourced and encyclopedic details about the theology represented by different paintings? But mostly I don't understand why you object to these pictures being there: it seems to me they add to the article. WP:VANDTYPES refers to Image vandalism, but that does not apply here either. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Undue:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Having multiple images throughout the article of something only mentioned in the middle of the article is undue weight. MCSKY (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I see where you are coming from, however I don't agree that having these images gives undue weight to the topic. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me how putting multiple images of the incident throughout the article is not undue weight, when it is only a small part of the Lot narrative, and it is only mentioned in the middle of the article.

Why do you think it is necessary to add more images when there is already one available? MCSKY (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to help here. I suggest the following: (1) Yes, putting more than one image to illustrate this one point from the article is unnecessary, but (2) does it matter? My suggestion to both the editors involved is that they should leave it and move on to other editing. The amount of time and effort they have both put into this is giving undue weight to a truly trivial issue. Edit-warring over this tiny detail is really not worth the effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wise words JamesBWatson. Agree completely. Springnuts (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The new user main purpose is to make an edit war, harassing and vandalism. Why there is no administrator ban him? I will not being use by that user.--Player23 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with your edits doesn't mean it's harassing and vandalism. I stated previously that the new additions gives undue weight to a small part of the text, and is also unnecessary. MCSKY (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is Undue weight. If you continue to revert my edits, I will distinguish it is harassing. There is a WP:harass policy.--Player23 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, just because I disagree with your edits doesn't mean it's harassing. MCSKY (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the page with the three (full-color, Renaissance I presume?) images, I think, yes, it is too much to have all three--the reader's attention is drawn away from the article to the pictures, and I half expected to see a section about the use of the Lot/incest story in later European culture. If there were such a section, then maybe one of the relevant paintings would make sense as an example. But without that, you've simply got too many images that don't relate to the article as a whole and that, in fact, distract from the article. My advice: find a much simpler and smaller image of the story--just ONE--and use it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the original one or the Vouet one, seeing as Simon Vouet is known for his religious paintings. MCSKY (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Any scope for a sourced article on Images of Lot and his Daughters in Western Art? Not Original Research however of course. Springnuts (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there's several paintings of Lot and his daughters is, in itself, extraordinarily notable. In the Middle Ages, paintings were the focus of teaching. They were teaching aids. All three paintings also include (visual) reference to the daughters getting Lot intoxicated with wine. Thus the message becomes much more complicated than a simple porn-warning to the viewer. Rather than snuffing out any discussion by removing these outstanding teaching aids, can we not leave leave them in place? They are a historical fact of immense value, still useful after all these centuries. Santamoly (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but there would need to be a discussion of Lot in the Middle Ages (and probably in the Renaissance) to justify keeping all three very large images. (And they really do take up a lot of space on the page.) Right now, the article doesn't really warrant that many depictions of that one scene. Could we not add a section on "Lot in Western Art" and discuss the reasons why there were so many versions of his story. And not just the incest story, but other episodes from his story as well. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple depictions of dozens of Bible stories. There is no reason to include the images at the top of the article, where Lot and his daughters aren't even mentioned. Not only is it an undue weight issue, it also crowds the article. MCSKY (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not place the images in a section at the bottom of the page? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How about a "gallery" section such as this one. New_york_city#Gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSKY (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought - I was just wondering if that would meet the issue here, and if it would help for a third party to try something. I will give it a go. Springnuts (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a gallery would be safe, and then we could add other images as we find them, and perhaps create a section on the legacy of the Lot stories (plural) in art and literature. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look here: [1] at a possible new section which I hope would allow the paintings to be in the article, in an encyclopedic form, but not overly prominent. Comments here please. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the title "In art" and thumb size images instead of full size? Baroque art is too specific, as it excludes renaissance. And having a section with nothing but full size images will take up a huge chunk of the article, especially when more pictures are added. MCSKY (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and for your thoughtful comments. Yes good idea to head the section 'In Art' - and leave the line below saying it is early Baroque. I was specific about Baroque, since it turns out to be early Baroque - and from the little I know it is interestingly transitional - in that Renaissance Art tends to show the moment immediately before something happens, Baroque shows it happening. In the Muller - 1600 - who is on the cusp of Baroque - Lot is simply in the process of getting drunk; in the Goltzius - 1616 - things have moved on a bit - but in the Vouet the action is in full swing. Now THAT is all Original Research, so I can't put it in the article; but it is better to be more specific and call it Baroque art. I didn't use simple thumbs since they looked dreadful - the Vouet is out of scale with the other two, and the paintings do not fill the width of a 1280 screen. Please would you have a look back here: [2] for another attempt with new title and three versions of the layout. Thanks, Springnuts (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the images are full size, and there are possibly several other images which could be included, then a minor part of the article would take up a huge amount of space. I recommend using the format here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_city#Gallery

Although it would not take up the entire width of the screen, images are intended to supplement text and articles would be hard to navigate if the screen is mostly filled with images. MCSKY (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I am such a biff at images! I have copied the format and it looks OK - I like the way it is centred, so the page is not lopsided. I will upload it to the article and let's see how it looks there. Springnuts (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the section looks great. I moved a painting from the section to the first section, as I think it's ideal that the section have one painting illustrating it. I also moved the art section below the popular references section, as I think cultural references are more significant than the art section. MCSKY (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MCSKY. OK, well it is just my POV that Fine Art is more significant than Popular Culture hahaha! Thanks for your help and happy editing. Springnuts (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Like: It looks good, it doesn't distract from the page, it invites expansion (medieval, renaissance, modern, Jewish renditions, etc.) and sets a precedent for the size of any future images. Huzzah!!! Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the images solution, even the thumbnails. At one time, the paintings were more important than our modern words because the viewers were often illiterate. The paintings were needed to keep everyone on message. Just imagine how far off topic we could get without these paintings to keep us focused. Santamoly (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Name Change Proposal.......AGAIN

Has anyone noticed the page Lot (Sodom) ?

I'm sorry folks, but I really have to suggest another page name change. Since the Islamic view finally got their page Lut and Lot is back to a Judo/Christian view... couldn't we keep the pages consistant with other biblical figures... like...Job (Biblical figure)? The current name of this page: Lot (The Judo-Christian View)... well, sucks. I mean, I know why it was done... but we don't need it anymore.

I propose naming consistancy... Lets go back to Lot (Biblical)...as that is the most appropriate page, I believe.

And someone has to do something with Lot (Sodom) another inappropriate name that needs to be merged into this article... come on guys!

Jasonasosa (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem here with consistency. Be bold! Springnuts (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I strongly support changing the current name. It's too long and it's really about Lot as he appears in the bible. Either Lot (Biblical), Lot (Biblical Figure) or Lot (Bible) are fine imo. Lindert (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to create a new page for Lot... since there are like 5 pages dedicated to him already... even though I would love to have Lot (Biblical Figure) as Lindert suggested... Well, its up to you. For now... I pointed all Lot pages to this one. Anything other than Lot(sodom) or the last title it was at, is better. Jasonasosa (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New Content

Lot needs a makeover... I hope you like what I have so far... I posted a new introduction and a new Section called Lot's Travels in an effort to reveal more things about Lot that gets overlooked. I also want to address the "seduction" topic... my analysis of that is in the works.

Jasonasosa (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling you got into an edit conflict with me while I was doing a history merge. I don't see your changes and there's nothing left unmerged in limbo. Was it a recent edit? Sorry if I caused a conflict that wasn't noticed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the old cut and paste method :/ To be specific... I just added "Lot's Travels" with sub sections like "Haran Settlement", "Land of Canaan", "Land of Egypt", "Plains of Jordon" and "Kingdom of Sodom" ... with all enhanced and new material that was not here before.Jasonasosa (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Was it this edit that you did? If that's it, then it's saved and we have no problem. I thought you were referring to something more recent. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything is good. All content is there. I also added new updated referenced material for the Fleeing Sodom section. Thanks for making sure that the page works right, I appreciate your help, Shirik. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lot and his Daughters

I've now added more content for the section newly titled 'Lot and his Daughters'. I thought that was more appropriate than 'Seduction'... besides, I dont believe Lot was seduced. I didnt state this opinion in the article... but, personally, I think Lot knew what had to be done, and the only way he could do what he did with his daughters, was to get wasted... bad. And think about it... they had children. So, duh, obviously Lot knew what happened since hes the only guy there... and yet the boys were raised to become well... fathers of powerful nations. If Lot held anything against his daughters for "raping" him... I imagine that he would have killed them or ousted them... But he didn't. Anyway, that's my thought on it.

And since we are on the subject... that Hendrik Goltzius' 1616 painting of Lot and his daughters suggests an orgy! And thats NOT what happened. LMAO.

In fact, I think all those paintings serve Lot injustice, because he wasn't being a perv. and I'm sure the daughters weren't too thrilled about it either. We as humans just like to let our imaginations run wild and think of the worst stuff possible.

Jasonasosa (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other Hand... they grew up in Sodom and Gomorra. If you accept that as a city where incest was the norm and only their father was the strange guy usually not for incest. Arguing about what their deed was for them from our pov seems just pointless.

128.127.108.28 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This has re-entered the lead again with the word "seduced". I changed it to the more neutral wording of "has sexual intimacy with" which is factual and removes any need to decide whether he was raped, he committed rape, was seduced or somewhere in between. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet again, seduced entered the lead so I reverted it. Here is the line in question: "33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose." Clearly not seduction. I am fine with any suggested neutral wording, but I prefer to stay away from the extremes of calling it "raped" or "seduced". There has to be some middle ground here. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like seduction to me, and has been so interpreted by by most readers for the last few thousand years. It would tend to be counted as rape in many modern jurisdictions, because of the clearly expressed lack of active consent, but I don't think we need to go that far. Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If it there is a missing "expressed lack of active consent", by definition it is not seduction. Additionally, seduction is not sourced in the article so that would be OR. Rape is sourced, but again, I want a great article and there is plenty of middle ground between rape and seduced. I don't like either word in the lede. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll note at this point that the IP editor has stated on my talkpage that they intend to force their preferred wording on the article and has edit-warred to do just that despite there being no support for such a change on this talkpage. I would suggest that 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 read WP:CONSENSUS before they move from being opinionated to being disruptive enough to get blocked. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not forcing anything and I am engaged here on the talk page. Do you have anything to add to the discussion about it being biased and original research? Additionally there is support for it being considered rape in this section of the talk page and there are sources that call it rape in the article. Again, there must be some compromise between raped and seduced. I don't prefer either word. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The existing phrasing is absolutely correct and should not be changed. I note that you have now started using either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet account (144.160.98.94) to try and force your preferred version of the text. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all remaining WP:CIVIL is a requirement for editing at WP and I have no puppets and my edits are for all to see, so I ask you to retract. Second, you still have not provided any support or consensus for your version of the lead nor have you addressed the issue of WP:OR in the use of the word "seduced". You seem to be only interested in making inflammatory remarks while avoiding any actual discussion of the topic at hand. I am not sure how many times I need to say I am open to the suggestions of others, including yourself, to find a neutral, encyclopedic edit that is a summation of the scholarly sources. Some of the sources say raped, none say seduced. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Two IPs from the same location edit-warring on the same page isn't plausibly a coincidence. Consensus for the the phrasing "seduction" is implied by the fact the article has been thus worded for a considerable time without. Your claims to being "open to suggestions" are at odds with your behaviour in edit-warring. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is no implied consensus. As recently as October the same line said raped.[[3]]. You successfully had the article locked, this would be a good time to reach consensus. "FUlly protected the page for four days. IP's being reassigned isn't an issue, the boiling under edit war, however, is." It takes two to edit war. 2600:1700:1111:8630:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lut

Imadjafar, the article Lut was designed to have the entire Islamic view on that page because there is too much information. The articles have to be seperate. All religous views should be only 1 or 2 paragraphs longs and anything more than that should be a new article. Same for Jewish and Christian views.

Please see Wikipedia's insights at: article spinout on how this applies to these articles.

Jasonasosa (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Content obstructions

• Merging another main article (Lut) onto this main article obstructs WP:CFAS.
• The POV that is concerned here also excedes WP:NPOV-Due and undue weight.

You may not have the same exact article, especially for its length, at two different page locations. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus came from Abraham, through Isaac, not Lot

If you check out Matthew 1:1-16 (Bible New Testament) you'll find the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It begins at Abraham through Isaac, Jacob, Judah,Perez, down to Ruth, the mother of Obed who was David's grandfather. There is also a genealogy listed in Luke 3:23-38. Lot is not mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.69.63 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In a male line, Jesus is of course not descended from Lot, but from Abraham. However, you mention Ruth as one of Jesus' ancestors. Ruth was a Moabite woman, and the Moabites are descended from Lot. So Lot was an ancestor of Ruth, and Ruth was the mother of Obed, Obed was an ancestor of Jesus. -- Lindert (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LORD template

I thought Template:LORD was to be used only when quoting the Bible? It seems to be used in ordinary text in this article - I'm guessing there are several NPOV problems with that. SPat ^talk 00:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not "ordinary" text. The two cases in this article outside of direct quotes are in summaries of the biblical text, in lieu of quoting lengthy text from chapters 12 and 17 of Genesis. The word LORD is what is used in the cited text, so it is certainly proper to use it in a short summary. There is no NPOV problem with using the name "Jesus" in ordinary text talking about him, so neither should there be a problem using "the name of the LORD" in the same manner. (P.S. I changed the section header to plain text.)
—Telpardec  TALK  21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up! SPat ^talk 03:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How many daughters did Lot have?

I am uncertain because he had virgin daughters and married daughters. That is at least four.80.141.190.107 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you get the idea of 'virgin daughters and married daughters'? Lot had two daughters. Neither of them married, but both conceived by their father, so they weren't virgins either. - Lindert (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

dear Lindert, the articles clearly mentions in one paragraph "offered them his virgin daughters, that had not "known" man" [Gen.19:4–9]. So this is direct mention on them being VIRGINS.

then in the next paragraph it is mentioned like this "When he went out to his sons in law that married his daughters, to warn them to flee, they treated him as one that mocked.[Gen.19:10–14]

SO the ORIGINAL writer has made VIRGIN daughter married with husbands in few minutes of story duration.

this kind of irresponsible or directly illogical story telling is prevalent in Most of the Mythologies and religious writings. these paragraphs are referenced from King James version of the story, I wonder if such is the case with other versions or in the original texts. dan 39.48.189.117 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

did a bit of research and according to some writers, "the son in laws mentioned in the story were actually betrothed men whom were in promise to marry his daughters...." SO these girls can be Virgins after all AND 'lawfully' married but never physically. I hope this helps anyone with a certain ITCH while reading the text as it is. Dan 39.48.161.31 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see no reason why he would not have four (or more) daughters. Two unmarried virgin daughters living at home - who ran away with him - and an unspecified nummer of married daughters, who were in their own homes while their husbands were out having fun. There's nothing strange or contradictory about that. Which would also explain why the angel said, "Take your wife and your two daughters who are here"86.151.0.212 (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that he had more than two is noted in the Lot's daughters article. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it not possible that the only two daughters were married as children and continue to live as virgins with their parents until they are of age? For one modern example, see the case of Rukhmani in this BBC story.BTWaters (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added w/o comment (to avoid removal as "own research") on the Lot's daughters page the following:

The King James Version (KJV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) describe the older surviving daughter as "the firstborn", while the Contemporary English Version (CEV) uses "the older"

and linked the respective passages. Of course, "firstborn" suggests only 2 daughters (normally they married in strict order of their age). I don't know what the original Hebrew term means or whether it's ambiguous, and that would be the decisive argument, rather than any English translation. Anyone?

Lying to the mob ("virgins") can be easily justified, and then countered (the mob knew the truth, Lot's family lived in Sodom and the daughters had apparently married Sodomites, who weren't offered salvation by the angels), and that again countered back: in moments of stress.... And so on. But this is not a scientific paper with a rigurous inner logic, it's the Bible, a religious book merging and editing several sources into one, so the discussion is nonsensical if it tries going beyond the attempt to collect what different schools of exegesis and various theologians have come up with, and analysing that. That is indeed part of encyclopedic work (and it's quite interesting to observe smart people twist their minds into explaining away contradictions in imaginative ways, which then reflect a lot of their own worldviews). Arminden (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. According to Strong's Concordance, the word in question does literally mean "first-born". The only commentary I can find on this with a quick search is from John Gill (18th century); he takes it as a relative term, meaning the firstborn of the two. That seems like a reasonable interpretation. As you say, though, our job is only to comment on the sources, so in the absence of any critical discussion of this problem, I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, even more so as an 18th-century comment is very likely to be seriously outdated. Science has advanced quite a bit even in non-technical domains. Arminden (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was the information you added to the Lot's daughters article isn't needed if there's no secondary sources discussing the issue. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's needed, but it adds a piece of information, much like a red link, which can potentially nudge someone better read in this field than me to present exactly that, secondary sources. I avoided adding any comment at all so that there's no discussion about original research. I am sure that the topic has been discussed by theologians and biblical exegetes, it's worth motivating specialised editors to go and look. Arminden (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Templates

I have just reverted the addition of some templates. Templates for Judaism and Islam were added, but not one for Christianity, which seems inconsistent. In any case, we have an Islamic view of Lot article, which could have the Islam template, but to have all three in this article is a clear case of WP:TEMPLATECREEP. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Christian mythology

I'm not sure why there is a mention of and link to Christian mythology in the lead. It's talking about Jesus being a descendent of Lot, which is in the Bible, and therefore part of Christianity. Obviously, the phrase "according to Christianity" means were are not making a judgement of historicity. I propose changing Christian mythology to Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully agreed. - Lindert (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not

sure what there is to discuss. Pass a Method talk 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the Quran in the lead?

Should the Quran be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead? It is already covered in the second paragraph. I note that this article is mainly about Lot in the Hebrew Bible, with Lot in Islam being a separate article. StAnselm (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not explained why you removed it. Pass a Method talk 20:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the above post is to start a discussion, and I would expect you to explaint he reason for your change. But I removed it because of undue weight - the biblical usage is primary, and that is what this article is about. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm. The focus of this article (as also by the title) is the Bible's narrative of Lot, which is outlined in section 1. There is no corresponding section for the narrative of Lot in the Quran; that's covered in the Lot in Islam article. Iselilja (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph should be about Lot in the Hebrew Bible. The second should mention the New Testament (rather than "Bible" as at present) and Quran, and include a link to Lot in Islam. The latter could be done by introducing the Arabic form of his name, Lut.

The part about Christianity in the intro section needs to be changed too. At the moment it is WP:SYNTH to state that Jesus was descended from Lot, supported only by primary source references; this should either be removed, or backed with a citation from a prominent commentary, but even then I would move it out of the intro. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Katherine Low's article

From the end of the article in question:

"In this essay, I have argued that Lot sexually abuses his daughters through controlling their sexuality in Sodom, an act that lends itself to feminist psychoanalytical analysis of the complexities of remembering abuse . . . As a result of that analysis, I have highlighted the ways in which Lot's daughters confuse kinship through their incestuous initiatives"

The scene in the cave is a psychological consequence of the abuse, but no claim has been made that the cave was an act of abuse by Lot upon his daughters. Rather, it is an act which reveals their mindset. The article does not make the claim that the actions of Lot's daughters in the cave were an act of abuse by Lot, but rather the consequence of the mindset created by the earlier abuse and the patriarchal system in general. We cannot go beyond what the cited article actually claims. As I am not one to perseverate on any particular article, however, if my change is reverted I ask only that an explanation be left clearly explaining what I missed from the article. No accusation of bad faith is intended. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference #2 is a link to the Bible passage?!

This is just the most hilarious misunderstanding of citations ever. Wikipedia is based on scientific hermeneutical standards, not the authority of a translated book. If someone wants to include a link to the Bible passage, put it somewhere where it's clear what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.28.222 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether a Bible quotation is appropriate as a reference in Wikipedia depends on the context. In this case it is not used as an authority for Lot as a historical person, but rather for Christian beliefs concerning Lot. For this purpose the Second Epistle of Peter is a very good source, because Christian Churches agree virtually unanimously that this epistle is authoritative for Christians. - Lindert (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Paltith birth order

I came across List of names for the biblical nameless#Lot's daughters and it mentions 3 names which makes me wonder just how many Lot had. Clearly 2 accompanied him out of Sodom, but is it clear that he explicitly only has 2?

In the two that exit Sodom, one is older and one is younger. Is this merely relative to one another, or does the text imply one is the eldest overall of daughters?

Jasher 19:24 says:

the wife of Lot bare him a daughter, and he called her name Paltith

Do you think this means that Paltith is the eldest?

No source is listed for Pheiné and Thamma so I don't know yet what would indicate their ordering. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the biblical person called Lot, and this talk page is for discussing improvements to that article. Only two unnamed daughters are mentioned in the Bible. —Telpardec  TALK  13:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"In-universe information"

The sidebar in this article appears to be using a format intended for fictional characters, giving "in-universe information." This appears as an oversight at best and an insult at worst. Even wholly ahistorical, non-religious, legendary/mythological figures (say, King Arthur) do not have this in their articles, much less other biblical figures and prophets. I would edit this myself if I knew how to change the sidebar format or otherwise remove this mention, but it does not appear straightforward. 96.242.144.8 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to use the plain infobox as with Abraham. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

More content about the name etymology is needed

«lit. "covering", "veil"» is not enough. Please expand further. 102.40.254.147 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)