This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lot (biblical person) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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
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
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)
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 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)
see discussion in Talk:Lut. -- Striver 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
I would have no objections to making it better. Wrad 17:31, 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
I added this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) Azmi 1995 07:35, 9 Februari 2008 (UTC) 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have added w/o comment (to avoid removal as "own research") on the Lot's daughters page the following:
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)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 20:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 04:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
sure what there is to discuss. Pass a Method talk 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
From the end of the article in question:
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)
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:
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)
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)
«lit. "covering", "veil"» is not enough. Please expand further. 102.40.254.147 ( talk) 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lot (biblical person) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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
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
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)
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 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)
see discussion in Talk:Lut. -- Striver 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
I would have no objections to making it better. Wrad 17:31, 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
I added this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) Azmi 1995 07:35, 9 Februari 2008 (UTC) 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have added w/o comment (to avoid removal as "own research") on the Lot's daughters page the following:
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)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 20:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 04:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
sure what there is to discuss. Pass a Method talk 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
From the end of the article in question:
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)
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:
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)
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)
«lit. "covering", "veil"» is not enough. Please expand further. 102.40.254.147 ( talk) 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)