Lot did not "Get drunk and impregnate his daughters" as some describe it. His daughters got him drunk and made him impregnate them. And they premeditated doing it. Genesis 19:32 "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."
You may be assuming his daughters were very young. Their age isn't specified, but there is reason to suspect they were born before Lot ever came to Sodom. Even if they were born soon after, Lot had been in Sodom for probably over 20 years before this happened.
Some people also have it in their head The Bible doesn't condemn anyone's actions in this story just because the narrative voice doesn't stop to say "and what they did was wrong". The Bible often does things that way, especially in Genesis.
The Bible condemns examples of Rape various times. But the part of The Law of Moses that is the civil law code of Israel is like plenty else in The Law imperfect in how issues are addressed. Because while given by God it's still a Law Code for an imperfect fallen world.
Anyone who studies Jewish attitudes to their Law knows the intent of The Law matters. And Besides murder every capital offense in The Torah is only meant to be viewed as a maximum penalty not a minimum one.
Only if a Woman is betrothed or married would her having any sex outside marriage be a capitol offense. And we see with how Joseph handled Mary's situation that the Groom/Husband is fully allowed to simply drop the charges.
Deuteronomy 22:24 is attacked because people read it as "All the Rapist has to do is cover her Mouth and he'd get away with it". That's not the intent, the intent is clear that if It's Rape she shouldn't be executed. And He wouldn't get away with it, he gets killed no matter what.
If I wanted to I could attack Deuteronomy 22:25-27 from the other way. It seems to be an exception to the usual rule of needing two witnesses. A betrothed Damsel could just say some random guy raped her in the field and no proof is needed, he'd just be dead. If we take this law at face value. Today it's politically incorrect to suggest a woman would ever make a false Rape accusation, and the way this law is set up suggests to me the Bible's authors might have agreed with modern SJWs on this. The only false Rape accusation in The Bible is what lands Joseph in prison in Egypt, and that was a woman far more privileged then most. If The Bible mentions something only once, you can't build doctrine on it.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is repeatedly refereed to as if it not only explicitly included Rape but was specifically about Rape. (That's partly because it's mistranslated in versions other then the KJV). And that it's saying a unbetrothed woman who's raped is forced to marry her Rapist.
First of all it doesn't in this case even address if it's Rape, and the point is not about the Woman but about the Man's responsibly to a Woman who's virginity he takes. I think most Rabbis would agree that it's implied neither the woman or her father is required to do anything, and that if he refused to accept the Silver no marriage happens.
Deuteronomy means the second giving of the law, almost every law in it is repeated from earlier. This specific situation is a less detailed repeat of Exodus 22:16-17.
Both these passages are clearly different wording expressing the same thing. And it's purely the modern world's fixation on attacking the Bible that has made Deuteronomy's version more famous. This part of Exodus is where any good study of The Law should begin. It's repeated at all only to ensure it's importance is understood.
The word translated entice in the KJV is sometimes translated "seduce". Many ancient languages used the same words for seduction and rape. Both this Hebrew word and the one rendered "lay hold" in Deuteronomy includes according to Strongs an implication of deception in their meaning.
Deuteronomy means the second giving of the law, almost every law in it is repeated from earlier. This specific situation is a less detailed repeat of Exodus 22:16-17.
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.When it's acknowledged at all, an annoying perception exists on one site that Deuteronomy is specifically about rape and Exodus is specifically about if it's consensual. But use common sense, even the law codes that are the worst on Rape have never made a Rape victim more guilty then a woman who has sex consensually. The problems come from people refusing to acknowledge rape.
Both these passages are clearly different wording expressing the same thing. And it's purely the modern world's fixation on attacking the Bible that has made Deuteronomy's version more famous. This part of Exodus is where any good study of The Law should begin. It's repeated at all only to ensure it's importance is understood.
The word translated entice in the KJV is sometimes translated "seduce". Many ancient languages used the same words for seduction and rape. Both this Hebrew word and the one rendered "lay hold" in Deuteronomy includes according to Strongs an implication of deception in their meaning.
In the case of Amnon's rape of Tamar however she does reference back to this Law and condemn him for not obeying it. Modern women I know can't possibly relate to the idea that a woman would want to marry the man that raped her. But women 3000 years ago were in a very different situation. They mostly needed to be married to even survive. That's why Jesus said that a man forces his Wife to commit Adultery by remarriage if he divorces her.
