We have often thought that if creationists can defend their bizarre creationist doctrines, they can defend anything. Apparently that’s true. We found proof at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.
AIG’s article is Contradictions: A Lot of Righteousness. It’s the latest in a long series of articles explaining away contradictions which abound in scripture. This time they’re concerned that Lot — of Sodom and Gomorrah fame — is referred to in scripture as “righteous.” According to this Wikipedia article: “Jesus is a descendent of Lot through David’s great-grandmother Ruth, who is descended from Lot’s son Moab.”
Remember that name, Moab; it comes up later. But how can Lot — of all people — be considered righteous? Although a nephew of Abraham, Lot lived in Sodom. AIG’s article says, with bold font added by us:
[Scripture] records that Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom when the angels came, and he invited them to his house. When a mob of men came later that evening to molest Lot’s guests [scripture reference], Lot offered his daughters to the crowd in an attempt to satiate them. Providentially, he was prevented from doing so. The angels pulled Lot back into the house and blinded the mob [scripture reference].
The angels saved Lot’s daughters, but Lot was quite willing to give them to the mob. AIG doesn’t go into detail, but we will. Here’s what the Good Book says of Lot’s behavior that night. This is from Genesis 19:8 (King James version, of course). Lot says to the mob:
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Nice guy. Great family values. Then AIG reminds us of Lot’s incest with his daughters. Again, they don’t go into detail and neither shall we; but the tale is told in Genesis 19, starting at verse 30 and running through verse 35. Then the next two verses say:
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
So there’s the Moab connection (but AIG never mentions it). Then AIG returns to the problem with which their essay grapples:
How can we reconcile this in our minds? Lot, the ineffective leader, the indecisive family man, the comfort-loving hedonist, the drunken dad — how could this man be called righteous?
“Drunken dad”? That’s one way to put it. Anyway, we have confidence that AIG can handle this dilemma. If they can believe that Genesis is good science, and Noah’s Flood was a recent historical event, they can talk themselves into believing anything. Here they go, with scripture references deleted:
We only know of Lot’s actions during a short period of his life. We are not told of Lot’s final days, but we do know that while living with Abraham he was a witness to Abraham’s humility, kindness, and faithfulness to God. He also saw Abraham make poor decisions and sin, and then saw him repent. So it is not unreasonable to presume that Lot repented of his sin later in life, and God forgave him as He has promised.
See? It’s “not unreasonable” to assume that Lot was forgiven. Wow — maybe even a Darwinist can find forgiveness! Then, after some gobbledegook, AIG wraps it up with this:
Lot spent too much time around the creature comforts of life in Sodom, and consequently his testimony was tarnished. Yet even in all of this, God was faithful and did not forget that Lot was His servant. God twice delivered him physically, and through the Holy Spirit He conveyed to us that Lot was righteous, signifying more importantly that He delivered Lot from his sins. Though Lot did not live a very outwardly righteous life, he believed in God by faith, and God counted that faith as righteousness.
So there you are. If Lot could be forgiven, maybe even you, dear reader, may yet hope. Oh, wait — AIG has a footnote that helps to explain things:
Note that the laws forbidding sexual relationships between close relations were not codified until the time of Moses in Leviticus 18. Abraham married his half-sister, and Adam’s and Eve’s children married each other. Either way, these actions were carried out by the daughters, who were never called righteous by the Scriptures.
Ah, it was the girls’ fault. Yes, it has always been thus. In conclusion, we return to what we said at the start: If creationists can defend their bizarre creationist doctrines, they can defend anything.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.