Added: 1 year ago
From: livvyxo
Views: 1,505
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (16)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Doesn't the part telling you not to do it come after the part where Lots girls do it?

    Also, that was a fucked up family before that even happened.

  • O.O

  • Ok, if you read on, you will find out that GOD was not OK with it. In fact the whole bloodline was cursed from that moment forward. GOD doesn't always smite us when we do wrong. Sometimes we smite ourselves and all generations afterward.

    You really need to read the whole story and not read things into it. Just because they did it in the Bible, doesn't mean GOD endorsed it! lol! I mean, most of the Bible is full of people doing the wrong things and paying the price!

    God said NO!

  • lolol ur so funny and hot ;)

  • i'm not religious in any way, but when it said about the two girls getting pregnant by their father, it didn't say it was right :P but i do see where you're coming from, why put it in if it's not right? unless they were smited later on in the bible or something..:P

  • @MazOhYeah Not to mention Adam & Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. By what divine miracle did they manage to reproduce?

  • @livvyxo eeeeeeeeeeeeexactly! :O i've always wondered this!!!

  • @livvyxo Common error. When Adam and Eve came out of the Garden of Eden they found civilisation. They were the first two humans, but they weren't the only ones. And one of the sons then killed the other one...

  • @livvyxo The bible does not in anyway state that what Lot's daughters did was right. So the question is then why is it in there? Because the Bible was (and is) also used a historical document to track the genealogy(in fact that's the main point of some of the books in the Old Testament). Would it not put the bible in more of a bad light if that was left out? Also Adam and Eve did not just have Cain and Abel (and Seth) they had plenty more sons and daughters which are not mentioned in the bible.

  • @itsbtdubbs you could not be more wrong. There is absolutely NO evidence to state that the bible is a historical document to track genealogy. None at all.

    There's plenty of evidence however to prove that it is a book jumbled full of scraps of writing by anonymous authors that has been re-written, re-translated and re-edited over hundreds and hundreds of years. It is outdated, contradictory and mostly a rather foul piece of fiction.

  • @livvyxo Id hate to break out actual fact on you but even the Smithsonian Institute (Which is not in any way a "Christian" organization but has contributed to a large amount of what you would call history) has stated "much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.". Funny thing that...

  • @itsbtdubbs LOL you are talking utter shite my friend

    But let's just say for funsies that you're not, by claiming that it's actually historically accurate, you're just backing up my theory that the bible is a horrific piece of shit disguising itself as a moral guidebook.

  • wat

  • Omg D:

  • @xbubblegumgoespop yeah, my thoughts exactly!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more