Zeb,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you are correct, you are showing that homosexual rape is the issue, not homosexuality itself?
There is of course a tremendous difference between the two.
[quote]vroom wrote:
As a final bit of PROOF I offer up yet one more piece of Biblical evidence where towns folk in another place also wanted to commit homosexual rape on one particular stranger as well.
Zeb,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you are correct, you are showing that homosexual rape is the issue, not homosexuality itself?
There is of course a tremendous difference between the two.[/quote]
Please reread my post, it is all in there.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters:
No you are not yet ready for Leviticus!
[/quote]
Dang! I thought for sure this part was over.
Yes I “cling” to the universal meaning of “to know”. This was in fact the standard Jewish teaching of the story of Sodom, it wasn’t till the first century of the christian church that Sodom began to be equated with homosexual activity. This was a reaction of the Judea/Christian element to the casual hedonism of the Hellenistic world. Sodomy originally encompassed all the sins of Sodom. It has snowballed into one meaning now, an incorrect meaning at that. The anti-gay agenda of the church has been added over time in translations of the bible. In this genesis example you have the deliberate mistranslation of “the men of Sodom”. The word translated wrong(on pupose) is 'enowsh. It’s accurate meaning is “mortals” --basically all the people of the city. So in the actual scripture, you have everybody in Sodom gathering around Lot’s home. In current translations–just the men. (Hmm…I wonder why?) So to set Zeb’s scene, you’d have men, women, boys, and girls, and everybody else present for homosexual-wait it can’t be just homosexual at this point–bisexual rape of the strangers. It is almost impossible to imagine Zeb’s scenario happening with the town of Sodom present!
Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Again men here is actually mortals. The people of the town don’t really know the gender of Lot’s visitors. The hebrew for man is 'iysh. It is used shortly afterwards:
I have two daughters which have not known man
The biblical writers made a clear distinction here; one word for man, one word for mortal inside the same passage. They chose to not be precise with the gender of the people of the town, and with the strangers inside Lot’s home. Modern translations have naturally removed any “nuance” and went simply with men all around! Combined with the connection of Sodom(y) to (wrongly) a homosexual act, you can see how folks like Zeb could be misled into concluding something totally different than the original teachings of the story of Sodom.
To clear things up, every citizen of Sodom has gathered around Lot’s house and asked him to bring out the people of currently unknown gender (as distinguished by the biblical writers)
so that we may know(yada) them
933 out of 943 times it means:
to know
to know, learn to know 1a
to perceive 1a
to perceive and see, find out and discern 1a
to discriminate, distinguish 1a
to know by experience 1a
to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess.
It has no homosexual usage. None. In it’s sexual connatation it means to “lie by man”. It doesn’t actually mean sex though–more of a referral to intimacy(the biblical writers would then leave the rest to the reader) Also remember that the writers assume that everybody is a heterosexual, they don’t understand sexual orientation ( Nobody does till perhaps the 19th century).“Lie by man” assumes a woman lying with a man. If the biblical writers wanted us to think sex, they would have used something like “shakab” (to lie down-for rest, sexual connection, death, or any other reason) They didn’t. Accident? Don’t think so.
The related hurdle for Zeb to clear is understanding just how severely this inhospitablity was to God. This one is pretty easy too. (The other easy hurdle:
men,women,seniors and children gathered around a house asking to be made aware of 2 unknown and unspecified people does not equal homosexual gangbang!)
Exodus 22:
21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
EEK!
The Sodomites have completely broken God’s law of hospitality, not just through their threats here, but by failing to welcome the strangers when they got to town. As we can read, the punishment for this alone is death! Lot’s treatment of the strangers is a stark contrast to the behavior of the Sodomites, remember Lot and Abraham are rewarded for their righteousness- not their sexual orientation. The whole focus of the story is on the characters behaviors and treatment of others, sexual orientation just never comes up!(And won’t will till a couple hundred years ago)
Readers,
Lot lives with the Sodomites, he is totally aware of the nature of it’s citizens, and from the moment the strangers arrive he does nothing but rush them out of sight. He is obviously worried about their safety. He wants them to sleep over and leave bright and early. Is this because he’s afraid they’re going to be raped? Hardly. The sodomites had already been referenced as paranoid–Lot had to be well aware that the judgement of 2 strangers slipping into a town like Sodom (a town full of riches that had just had everything stolen from them in a war along with Lot and then returned to them by Abraham) would mean almost certain death. Also keep in mind the references to abominations in later scripture:
“Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]” - Ezekiel 16: 49, 50
these references to detestable, and abominations are that other word again “toevah”-- unclean religous practices, or just plain ol’ idol worshippers. Sodom was in Canaan, and as you remember this land was full of wild idol worship, involving sacrafices, orgies, temple prostitution, and so on leading us perfectly to…
Lot’s daughters. Guess what? Their virgins! You have two tracks here. You don’t offer female virgins to a gay mob. But the crowd’s not gay, but they are pagans and Lot offers up the virgins to the angry crowd to appease them. (There is no sexual meaning in the language used, but he does make sure to mention to the pagans that they’re virgins—and Lot knows these people!) Taking in mind the bloodlust these people have and their idoltrous nature confirmed over, and over again and no mention ever of homosexuality in regards to Sodom(in the original scripture)and remembering the wild crowd that has gathered that includes all types of people, and that Lot and Abraham will bend over backwards to obey God, and that they are used in Genesis as examples of benevolance and righteousness, and that his daughters were just property read:
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.
My word! There is no hope in reading anything close to homosexuality into this story. The mentioning of the virgin daughters is not an accident. The references to Sodom’s idoltrous ways are not accidents. The lack of ever mentioning homosexuality in reference to Sodom was not an accident. The contrast of Lot’s kindness, and his willingness to bend over backwards to protect 2 random strangers from a judgement by the sodomites that he surely thought would be at the least severe is the personification of God’s hospitality laws, the Sodomites present the stern warning from god, break God’s laws pay the price. Nothing, can possibly be referenced in this story to cast a negative light on consensual gay relations. Nothing. Let’s do Leviticus!
yep
Woman lie with man. Rare but perfect usage—a perfect example of how this refers to heterosexual relations.
This is a parallel to the Sodom story. Ironically and luckily for me the moral is the same, be kind to outsiders. They were not homosexual rapists! It just doesn’t say that. A strange man with a concubine shows up in town, men surround the house (surprise there’s a whore inside!) and they ask the man to make himself known. And you left out the critical passage that debunks your “homosexual rapists”!
judges 20:5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, [and] thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead
…Thought to have slain me… It only goes to make my point stronger!!!
Readers, this is an example of writers rewriting a previous tale for a new audience, all the analogies are perfect, even the usage of the words! Let it be clear what the intended victim thought his fate was going to be, and thusly what the writers thought of the intents of the Sodomites!!!
Zeb we must move on to Leviticus! There’s nothing left here. In my favor:
Historical telling of the story. Check!
Proper usage of hebrew.Check!
Context. Check!
Scriptural references to story confirming actual sins of Sodom. Check!
Analogies via similar stories that confirm it’s the treatment of others not the consensual actions of one known person to another known person that bring god’s wrath. Check!
Best of all Jesus.
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Check!
Let’s do Leviticus.
Point, 100meters.
ZEB, your turn to serve.
100meters:
Once again you split hairs like Johnny Cochran holding up a bloody glove: “If it doesn’t fit you must acquit!” Ignoring the DNA evidence which gave his client only a one in 4 billion chance of actually not having committed the crime!
In your case there is virtually no chance of the word “know” meaning anything but having “sex” with. I don’t want the readers to have any doubt in their mind as there is no question in reality.
The “men” of Sodom (not the women according to scripture) called out Bring the strangers out so that we may “know” them? They wanted to have homosexual sex with the men. Might I also remind you that in a previous post you opened the door to homosexual rape: “rape strangers possibly.”
Genesis13:13 also states that it was the “men” of Sodom: “Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.” Men translated, “enowsh” meaning “males.”
Their (the men) sins were great indeed!
The “men” of Sodom had no idea that the strangers were Angels, I’m sure you must know that. They didn’t fly in to town. They were disguised as men.
Why when they called out to “know them” did Lot come to the door and state: “Do not do this wicked thing.” How is simply “knowing” someone, as in meet, greet etc. “wicked”? Yet, this is the usage which you expect the readers to believe. That makes no sense! There is no precedent in the ancient Hebrew for the word “know” meaning to fight with etc. There are a list of other words which better represent “fight” or “do battle with” as stated in one of my previous posts.
Lot then bragged about his virgin daughters and offered them up for sex as a substitute and used the same word “know” my daughters instead. How did the topic of sex suddenly come up, if in fact the men were not out for homosexual sex with the stranger?
As you can see in a similar story in Judges (when the men asked to “know” the stranger) there were no Angels present the men had sex with the woman and killed her as well!
“To Know” in both of these cases means to want to have sex with! There can be no other logical explanation!
Furthermore there were many great and talented people (into the thousands) who have translated this very scripture! People who, unlike you and I, spend a life time trying to understand the subtleties of ancient Hebrew. All credible versions back up my version to the letter!
New International Version:
Genesis 19:5: “They called to Lot, 'where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have “SEX” with them.”
New American Standard Version:
"And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where R484 are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have “RELATIONS WITH” them.”
New King James Version:
"And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them “CARNALLY.”
World English Bible:
"They called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have “SEX” with them.”
God’s Word Translation Version:
"They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have “SEX” with them.”
Updated Bible Version:
“and they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men that came in to you this night? bring them out to us, that we may have “SEX” with them.”
The Bible In Basic English (Version):
“And crying out to Lot, they said, where are the men who came to your house this night? Send them out to us, so that “WE MAY TAKE OUR PLEASURE” with them.”
Hebrew (Names) Version:
"They called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have “SEX” with them.”
New Living Translation:
"They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have “SEX” with them.”
New Life Bible:
"They called to Lot, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we may “LIE WITH” them.”
Christian Standard Bible:
"They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have “SEX” with them!”
New Century Version:
"They called to Lot, “Where are the two men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have “SEXUAL RELATIONS” with them.”
New Life Bible:
"They called to Lot, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we may “LIE WITH” them.”
Easy To Read Version:
“Where are the two men (angels) that came to you tonight? Bring them out to us. We want to have “SEX” with them.”
Do you not give the above versions any credibility? Do you think that every single translator from each edition of the above versions is dishonest? The least credible writers on this topic (and all Bible related topics) are found on web sites on the Internet. Is this where you are getting your information?
You must not rely on those who would deceive people actually searching for the truth. If you have relied on such material I can see why you are badly mistaken on this issue. Since our debate began I reviewed many of these twisted web sites and have simply come away shaking my head. I repeat, no credible argument as to the word “know” meaning anything else but having sex exists relative to the account given in Genesis 19:5.
If the above were not enough:
One final piece of evidence comes from no other than Josephus the Roman historian who wrote about Sodom after studying ancient Hebrew records. As you probably know he studied all of the Jewish laws, customs, tradition and history.
You find this located on “Josephus” web site Chapter 11 of “The Antiquity of the Jews Book One.”
Josephus States:
“Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful continence and this to an extra ordinary degree and that they took up their lodging with Lot they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence.”
Forced Homosexual Sex!
Yes, there were other sins of Sodom. However, you use those other sins as a shield placing them in front of the sin of homosexual sex. You attempt to cover up any potential for homosexual sex in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is unrealistic and in fact borders on the ridiculous.
What one story is depicted of Sodom and Gomorrah? Is it about murder, theft or vandalism? No, it?s an account of a potential violent homosexual act! As previously stated, sometimes in the Bible one story represents a history of what was occurring through a period of months or years. We cannot be positive in this particular case, but we can be sure that this one act was indeed an attempt for the “men of Sodom” to in fact have homosexual sex with the “strangers.”
Finally, the very best translators of the original scriptures all agree. The word “know” in this case does in fact mean “have sex with.”
It might be time to agree with me (and the rest of the world) on this point so that we can move on to Leviticus where I will once again demonstrate, through the scriptures, that the act of homosexuality, in all of it’s deviations is a sin according to the Bible.
I agree to disagree! You assume. I don’t. It says to know period. You have the perception that there is a statement against homosexuality, Your whole argument hinges on the hopes that one word means something that 99 percent of the time (933/943) means exactly what it means here! It is not just the men of sodom, as explained already even the KJV agrees with that!
But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
So that’s easy enough to debunk (The scripture says everybody!)
And for sure they were wicked, as discussed fully previously, but that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is simply not discussed with judgement in the bible. And yes they didn’t know they were angels—or what gender they were! This is clearly specified by word usage in the original hebrew. Sex isn’t brought up with his daughters, that’s just the way he mentions that they’re virgins—an offer of sacrafice for the pagan crowd. You and future bible translators put sex into the story—scripturally its not there. You keep mentioning the Judges story. WHY? That story parallels this one to disastrous effect for your argument. Those townsmen had violent intentions for the stranger, intentions the stranger himself declares —clearly confirming the negative intentions of to know and still having nothing to do with homosexual rape. (He thought he was going to be killed, not raped—his own words!—and all the townsmen said was come out so that we may know you!).
And you wisely chose to put all the current newest translations of the verse up. Unfortunately, it only goes to make my case—translators have added the bias to make a point unclear or unintended be much more “clear”. All the people is now men. The strangers of unknown gender now men. To know now to have sex with—which it never, ever, means! Its a word that infers not states. All these translators are guilty of activist readings of the scripture, and all themselves guilty of the sin of sodom hostility to outsiders.
Please simply acknowlege that all the people of the town are present, men, women, and children—all the people of Sodom. poof! There goes homosexuality!
Please acknowledge that the town was to be destroyed prior to the event. poof! There goes the hopes of homosexuality being the cause of Sodom’s doom.
Please acknowledge the Scripture never mentions homosexuality as a sin of Sodom. Poof! Bye Bye made up sin of Sodom.
Please acknowledge that rape is not consensual sex! Well, you see where I’m going with this—regardless of an accurate reading or a more “activist” reading nothing here relates to consensual, loving gay couples. See your Judges story as to how God cares not for the orientation of a rape.
My sources: The scripture. The actual scripture. In hebrew, confirming with the greek, cross checking usage via both lexicons. Remember it’s what the story was, not what the story came to be, or how it has been sorely misused. Fun with yada via hebrew lexicon:
here’s the usage of know(yada) in the KJV:
KJV (947) - acknowledge, 6; acquaintance, 6; certainly, 7; consider, 6; declare, 6; know, 645; knowledge, 19; known, 105; misc, 85; perceive, 18; shew, 17; teach, 5; tell, 8; understand, 7; wist, 7;
Sorry Zeb—you’re stretching and using recent translations is really only hurting your case.
As for Josephus(37-100ce) it confirms what I’ve already said the bias against homosexuality begins in the first century of the christian church–most likely as a reaction to the hedonism of rome. Note the reference to boys no less!
What did the Jews back then think?
well the Talmud, the mishnah and midrash…make no mention of homosexuality in relation to sodom.
from the talmud:
The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them…They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.
and…
There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour’s wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour’s ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.
wow. pretty rough.
The mishnah states the Sodomites believed:
“what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” (i.e. lack of compassion)
There is a theme and focus on Sodom, it’s just not sexual orientation (IS THIS OBVIOUS NOW READERS?)
Let’s please move on!
100meters:
It seems your arguments are based around a few differnt points which I have refuted multiple times:
-
The meaning of “know.”
-
The “Men” of Sodom.
-
“Orientation”
One more time, I think it’s worth it as there is plenty of time to move onto the other points in the Bible.
- The word “Know.” You like a tight cozy little definition which excludes anything to do with sex. However, as the experts in ancient Hebrew have pointed out. To “know” someone does in fact have a meaning “to have sex with.”
I’m sorry about that. I wish it were different and that we could agree, but the facts just don’t line up for your point of view:
You seem to have purposely left out one important definition of “know” in your post : “To lie with.” As in:
Genesis 4:1 "And Adam “KNEW’ eve his wife and she conceived, and bear Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.”
Genesis: 4:25 “And Adam “KNEW” his wife again; and she bear a son, and called his name Seth.”
Genesis 4:17 “And Cain “KNEW” his wife; and she conceived, and bear Enoch…”
And let’s not forget that crowd of nasty men who indeed wanted to have homosexual sex. When denied that strange MALE visitor they instead settled for a female.
Judges 19:22-24
“Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the MEN of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, bring forth the MAN that came into thine house, that we may “KNOW” him.”
The story of Judges is important as it runs parallel to the Lot account. In the case of Judges there were no Angels and the evil perverted crowd raped the girl (and she died). Don’t assume that a crowd of evil (and yes violent) men bent on sex first with males will not accept a woman in their place under these circumstances? Are you claiming that a true homosexual man has never had sex (of any kind) with a female before? You don’t think that this has ever happened? Wrong!
And of course in Sodom Genesis 19:5:
“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them.”
As you recall most translations when looking at the account of Lot in Genesis do in fact recognize the word “know” as having sex with (see my previous post for a brief list of 14 credible well accepted versions) Most say something more like this (NEW LIFE version):
"They called to Lot, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? bring them out to us so we may LIE WITH them.”
“Know” did indeed have many definitions, one which is to “have sex with” as proven over and over again by the scripture itself! Are you attempting to suggest that the word “know” does not have a meaning “to have sex with as one of it’s definitions?” That might be your most preposterous argument to date!
- The “Men” of Sodom:
The Bible clearly states “men.” Claiming otherwise is folly.
The Angels came in the form of “men.” “enowsh” which comes from “anash” meaning “adam,” or “a man in general.” That is the strict ancient Hebrew translation.
At least that’s the interpretation of every credible Bible scholar. And that is what is stated in every single credible version of the Bible since the beginning.
The “men” cricled the house. The “men” called out. The “men” wanted to KNOW Lots two strangers. Yes, they were all MEN.
- Orientation:
Trying to change the meaning of “know” relative to the Bible is your most preposterous argument. However, attempting to claim “orientation was not mentioned in the Bible so therefore there is a free pass involed relative to sin” is your most illogical argument.
The “orientation” argument makes no sense and never has! There is a good reason why “orientation” is not discussed in the Bible. IT DOESN’T MATTER! There is never an “orientation” discussed for sin, have you noticed? What if a thief is oriented that way? What if an adulterer is oriented that way?
It matters not whether someone has an “orientation” toward sin. We are talking about an “action” that is not pleasing to God as stated plainly in the Bible. Why then would the Bible make an exception for this? It does not! In fact, one could argue that anyone who sins (in whatever capacity) has an “orientation” to do so. Does that then give them a free pass to sin?
Furthermore, why would you illogically assume if it is not mentioned that God does in fact welcome it? That would be the first act ever performed which is mentioned in the Bible as sin which someone assumes is not sin because it is not mentioned in a certain way. Again, that makes no sense.
The fact that the Bible does not include “loving Gay couples” in it’s condemnation of homosexuality, must not lead you to an illogical assumption that sex between two people of the same gender is then in fact fine according to the Bible.
This is perhaps your biggest logic error and one which leads you to the false belief that homosexuality is not a sin. When you attach “love” to it you automatically think the act is sinless. Keep in mind “love” has nothing to do with making sin justifiable according to the scripture. Love is a great and wonderful thing, however it is never used to justify sin, not in the Old Testament or the New. Otherwise we could murder, steal, and commit all sorts of sin in the name of “love” and it would not be considered a sin.
Did you notice while reading through the scripture that there is no use of the word “love” attached to any other sin either? Doesn?t that tell you just a little something about homosexuality? There is no “love” exemption!
Finally, in your most recent post you called every single credible interpretation of the Bible (see short list in my previous post) in modern and ancient times “activist reading.” I just have to sit back and marvel at how badly you want homosexuality to not be a sin according to the Bible.
I know we live in quite liberal times comparatively speaking, however it is your ilk who places an “activist” spin on the scriptures. You then have the audacity to call every other credible interpretation activist? Wow. Homosexuality, as in same gender sex is indeed a sin. Sodom is a good example of attempted homosexual rape, only prevented by a pair of Angels disguised as men!
As alluded to in my previous post, I think the Internet has seriously twisted some peoples view on homosexual sin. If you surf the net you will find every manner of wacky interpretation regarding same gender sex and the Bible. All you have to do is misinterpret a word here, twist a meaning there and serve it all in the name of “love” and presto! Same gender sex is okay according to the Bible. That’s just not the case.
Unfortunately, when someone wants to believe in a certain thing and then is offered the opportunity to do so, they sometimes take the bait.
As far as I am concerned I wish that there were several exemptions to various sin that seems to reoccur in my own life. Heck if it were up to me I would eliminate quite a few of the “sins” that are mentioned as such in the Bible. However, it’s not up to me, and it’s not up to you either.
The Bible is very clear on what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Attempted homosexual rape!
It is also clear on the act of homosexuality, it’s a sin!
(We can move on to Leviticus, or we can continue to kick this back and forth. This is one of the problems when there is no moderator involved in a debate of this type. Each participant wants to emphasize his or her point and neither knows when to move on).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters:
It seems your arguments are based around a few differnt points which I have refuted multiple times:
-
The meaning of “know.”
-
The “Men” of Sodom.
-
“Orientation”
One more time, I think it’s worth it as there is plenty of time to move onto the other points in the Bible.
- The word “Know.” You like a tight cozy little definition which excludes anything to do with sex. However, as the experts in ancient Hebrew have pointed out. To “know” someone does in fact have a meaning “to have sex with.”
[/quote]
I’m not excluding–just pointing out to the readers that 99 percent of the time it means some context related variation of to know. 1 percent of the time it means to lie with a man. 0 percent of the time it means homosexual rape. My usage isn’t “cozy”, it’s just closer to “universal”. As you know, but don’t admit there is a better word to say sex. If they wanted to say sex—they would have, actually let me put it this way, if the writers really wanted to say what I’m saying (that they really wanted to just know the strangers) the correct word would be …drumroll…yada(to know)
perfect examples of the rare usage(note they all seem to be women lying with men)
Debunked already:
jdg 20:5
And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, [and] thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.
slain me. not rape me. This should be the end of the argument—because everything I’m saying about to know is wrapped up perfectly here—also note to readers–clearly “yada” implies in context (angry men surrounding house) that something bad is going to happen, but it certainly isn’t a homosexual rape! The man in judges was scared for his life, not his ass. It couldn’t be anymore clear could it?
again judges debunked. And sodom is not men, its the whole town.
gen19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
all the people from every quarter. Again it literally says every citizen of Sodom was there—The argument should be over again.
this is also debunked. The hebrew says mortals. Gender is deliberately not mentioned. It is thus unknown to the Sodomite citizens. Really the case for homosexuality is just gone now…
I’m not arguing that these very new translations have added the 19th century concept of homosexuality into the bible, I’m arguing that they shouldn’t be there.
I’m saying that 99 percent of the time it doesn’t and 1 percent of the time it does and never in regards to people of the same gender.
debunked. If the scripture says everybody—why do you keep saying men?
I’m guessing your argument may hinge on there only being men present, the scripture says otherwise. Lets’ stick with the scripture shall we?
debunked. Enowsh literally means mortal. Men would have been the hebrew word for man “iysh”! Enowsh refers to mankind, or an individual of mankind, it is genderless, making it male would require a qualifier like “zakar”. Such a qualifier is not used here.
Clearly, and utterly debunked. This usage by modern “translators” is only used to add bias to the story where there is none in the literal translation. A literal translation would not meet current readers expectations of the bibles percieved condemnation of homosexuality–thus bias is added.
The authors could have used men and have sex with, but didn’t. Why insert it? to add bias.
You made the point better than I, there is no bias towards sexual orientation. Orientation was assumed and irrelevant. You mentioned love, but the better qualifier is consent. Heterosexual rape led to the destruction of at least 2 towns. The moral of those stories is heterosexual sex is bad(sin), or that rape(treatment of a stranger) is bad(sin)? I think it’s pretty obvious the sexual orientation of the rape has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Doesn’t the insertion of homosexuality in your modern translations prove the opposite? If it wasn’t there and wasn’t taught—I think it only shows how bad you want it to be there.
A literal word for word reading says otherwise, and the scripture in reference to the story says otherwise.
Activist would be:
1.making mortals be men. (The word that always means “men” would be men)
2.making all the people from every corner be men. (They would have said simply all the men, instead emphasis on “all the people”
3. Making “to know” mean homosexually rape. (They could have just used the word to have sex with/ or ravage—“shakhabh”—used to describe all kinds of sexual activity including bestiality!)
4. Making all the people wanting to know the mortals mean homosexual rape. (Comical in its literal translation isn’t it?
5. Making the sin of sodom be homosexual rape. (Never,ever,ever, said in any translation of the bible)
6. Making the judges story also be about homosexual rape. (The biblical writers actually make the character say he was scared for his life–and you say homosexual rape???)
No question your reading is activist. You can’t be conservative and not have an activist reading of the bible. Social darwinist?..The jewish scholars taught long ago that the sodomite’s sin was “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” Modern conservative pastors now tell their congregations “homosexuality”
YOU CAN’T BE MORE ACTIVIST IN YOUR READING!
Actually the problem is…People not reading the actual scripture, and listening to the various anti-christs teaching different gospels. Stick with the scripture folks!!! Ok on with Leviticus! (Boy the (hebrew) scripture’s not going too be easy for zeb there either!)
100meters:
We are now down to a handful of words which are in question. Let’s take them one by one. At this point there are probably not many “readers” left other than you and I, so we don’t have to worry about boring anyone or seeming overly meticulous in our analysis, so why not?
[quote]I’m not excluding–just pointing out to the readers that 99 percent of the time it means some context related variation of to know. 1 percent of the time it means to lie with a man. 0 percent of the time it means homosexual rape. My usage isn’t “cozy”, it’s just closer to “universal”. As you know, but don’t admit there is a better word to say sex. If they wanted to say sex—they would have, actually let me put it this way, if the writers really wanted to say what I’m saying (that they really wanted to just know the strangers) the correct word would be …drumroll…yada(to know)[quote]
Your argument is weak! You tell us why one word is not as good as another. Yet, that one word is in fact applicable. Furthermore, you give us no other definition for “know” which would even come close to fitting the scenario.
Let’s take monder definitions: Is there a better word for “fornication” than “screw?” Sure, one could say “fuck” “laid” etc. your argument: “Gee, what is the correct word for having homosexual sex? We have to make sure that the word is perfect or we will not accept it.” Matters not! You can substitute any of the above and get the point across.
However, if you want to cast a doubt on the sin of homosexual sex then you raise absurd arguments which try to cast a doubt on one very proper use of the word “know.” This in addition to all other credible Bible scholars who are in agreement that the word “know” means “to have sex with.”
Because the definition of a word is only used on occasion that excludes it absolutely from ever being used? That makes no sense. It matters not if it is used 3% of the time or all of the time. “To know” in this case means “to have sex with.”
Tell me what you think it meant. What word could make Lot spring out the door and plead with them men: “Do not do this wicked thing,” Then attempt to substitute his “virgin daughters” in place of the men? What “wicked thing” does “know” mean, if not “to have sex with the men?”
There is no defintion for “know” in ancient Hebrew that means anything confrontational such as a beating, (which I have already challenged you on several times). Lot was a righteous man, (and was spared). Why would Lot call meeting, greeting etc. in any way “wicked”?
Your entire argument centers on condemning certain words which are absolutely applicable.
I think you only do harm to your cause as any reader can see you obviously do not have a strong argument. What you do have is a word game.
Zeb,
I’ll do it again.
If the biblical writers really actually wanted to say, All the Sodomites wanted to (just)know the mortals inside Lot’s house (or gain further knowledge of them, check the crendentials of, etc) what word would they have used?
If you said yada, you’re a winner!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zeb,
I’ll do it again.
If the biblical writers really actually wanted to say, All the Sodomites wanted to (just)know the mortals inside Lot’s house (or gain further knowledge of them, check the crendentials of, etc) what word would they have used?
If you said yada, you’re a winner![/quote]
Um…“know” in ancient Herbew is yada! Look it up as I did. It has plenty of meanings, one of which is “to lie with.” None of which has anything to do with fighting!
Answer this please: What possible meaning can the word “know” have to cause Lot to plead with the men “not to do this wicked thing?”
You are really beating a dead horse. Every single interpretaion relative to ancient Hebrew states that “know” means “yada.”
That could be why every single credible translation of the Bible either uses the actual word “know” (as in yada) or states “to have sex with” (or a variation of to have sex with).
100meeters, give up the ghost! The friendly men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the two strangers. And realizing this Lot pleaded do not do this wicked thing, then offered up his virgin daughters.
It seems everyone knows that but a few select people who follow the goofy (there is no better word) Internet sites which you seem to derive much of your information.
100meters give up the ghost!
I don’t understand, The hebrew says what I’m saying, It was originally taught the same way I’m saying, and the scripture in reference to the story says the samething I’m saying, and the word means exactly what I’m saying. But I’m goofy, or my sources are goofy (THE TORAH?) Also explain how Lot fearing for the safety of his guests is any less wicked than rape?
The key point is you have to assume a word has a new meaning (homosexual rape—it never refers to same gender sex, In all of its sexual usage (10 times) is it not always a woman with a man?) Why because the word means to know and the only reason back then for a woman to be intimate with a man was for sexual puposes—women didn’t just hang with men—that’s why in that rare usage it INFERS sex—sex is another word. Don’t you see it’s not just to know, but to gain a deeper understanding of something, some place, or someone. That’s the perfect usage here- and it’s the only word that could be used to say this. Lot’s fear of the Sodomites treatment of his guest was established as soon as they arrived…It’s only repeated over and over that they were unjust to strangers to their land and paranoid that outsiders may take their stuff.
You have to assume, not once but multiple times—I can just read what it says. All the people of the town adults and children gathered around and said to the MORTALS(gender unknown) come out so that we may know them.
Leaving your newer kookier translations aside…How do you have homosexual rape with men, women, and children? How would it be homosexual rape if the gender of the guests is unknown? How would God’s anger at the sodomites if they did RAPE the angels reflect on God’s opinion of Gays and Lesbians? Wouldn’t the logical assumption be he didn’t like rape? and Finally don’t you wish you could point to one piece of scripture in reference to the story that could back you up? It’s got to bug you that my Point of view is confimed over and over again via the scripture, and jewish teaching (talmud etc) and that all you have is very recent bad translations of the bible made for people who needed easy reading? Essentially EVERYTHING is in my favor—you’re arguing against the brick wall of the bible and history and I’m arguing against the obvious distortions in message from then to now.
[quote]100meters wrote:
I don’t understand, The hebrew says what I’m saying, It was originally taught the same way I’m saying, and the scripture in reference to the story says the samething I’m saying, and the word means exactly what I’m saying. But I’m goofy, or my sources are goofy (THE TORAH?) Also explain how Lot fearing for the safety of his guests is any less wicked than rape?
The key point is you have to assume a word has a new meaning (homosexual rape—it never refers to same gender sex, In all of its sexual usage (10 times) is it not always a woman with a man?) Why because the word means to know and the only reason back then for a woman to be intimate with a man was for sexual puposes—women didn’t just hang with men—that’s why in that rare usage it INFERS sex—sex is another word. Don’t you see it’s not just to know, but to gain a deeper understanding of something, some place, or someone. That’s the perfect usage here- and it’s the only word that could be used to say this. Lot’s fear of the Sodomites treatment of his guest was established as soon as they arrived…It’s only repeated over and over that they were unjust to strangers to their land and paranoid that outsiders may take their stuff.
You have to assume, not once but multiple times—I can just read what it says. All the people of the town adults and children gathered around and said to the MORTALS(gender unknown) come out so that we may know them.
Leaving your newer kookier translations aside…How do you have homosexual rape with men, women, and children? How would it be homosexual rape if the gender of the guests is unknown? How would God’s anger at the sodomites if they did RAPE the angels reflect on God’s opinion of Gays and Lesbians? Wouldn’t the logical assumption be he didn’t like rape? and Finally don’t you wish you could point to one piece of scripture in reference to the story that could back you up? It’s got to bug you that my Point of view is confimed over and over again via the scripture, and jewish teaching (talmud etc) and that all you have is very recent bad translations of the bible made for people who needed easy reading? Essentially EVERYTHING is in my favor—you’re arguing against the brick wall of the bible and history and I’m arguing against the obvious distortions in message from then to now.[/quote]
You are actually stating that the men said bring out the strangers so that “we can investigate them?” That is what prompted Lot to say “do not do this wicked thing” and then offer up his virgin daughters?
Okay, I have to type it: LOL!
You are actually arguing againstt every single credible Bible interpretation, both old and new! And…you know it!
The ancient Hebrew word for “Know” is Yada! You know it, I know it and anyone who knows anything about ancient Hebrew, such as every credible Bible scholar in the world, knows it!
The Men wanted to “Yada” or “know” the strangers. That means “to have sex with.” You should really stop the game playing, this gets us no where. You even stated a few posts back that the men would have to have said “yada,” well “know” means “yada” that should be the end of this part of the debate.
Just chalk it off and hope for a better showing in the many other verses which condemn homosexual sex!
Even though I disagree with Zeb about the issue of gay marriage, I think he’s right about what the word “know” means in the context of the chapters you two are discussing.
However, 100meters brings up a great question here:
[quote]100meters wrote:
Wouldn’t the logical assumption be he didn’t like rape? [/quote]
It makes a lot more sense to me that the verses in question comdemn gang rape in general. Would it have been okay with God if the mob had wanted to “know” some females instead? I can’t imagine that under those circumstances it would have been okay.
Anyway, thank you Zeb and 100meters for your discussion. It’s been interesting and has prompted me to crack my Bible for the first time in many years.
[quote]100meters wrote:
God I hate NRO. I think a quick reading of the news would reveal there was a little more to the ruling than just romer v. evans.
Also Scalia’s dissent in romer is just stupid, and why didn’t the NRO put up Kennedy’s opinion for romer?
P.S.
My marriage here in Mass. is STILL
not being damaged by gays having equal rights here. Weird, because Pat Robertson swore it would.[/quote]
You don’t seem to get it. The gay marriage issue is not about rights. Most States already have laws that allow gays to visit in the hospital, put the partner on their insurance plan, etc… All the “rights” that heterosexual marriages have. This is called the “domestic partners” law.
So why is it that even though the gays can have all the same rights as everyone else they are still pushing to have a “marriage”? Why? Because it’s not about rights. That’s just crap! It’s about normalizing deviance. It’s about trying to gain more acceptance for their deviant lifestyle.
So when you consider this issue understand that it has nothing to do with rights.
It’s about teaching little Johnny that that Adam and Eve can also be Adam and Steve!
Well, there is a telling phrase. I wonder what viewpoint this person has in this debate…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
100meters wrote:
God I hate NRO. I think a quick reading of the news would reveal there was a little more to the ruling than just romer v. evans.
Also Scalia’s dissent in romer is just stupid, and why didn’t the NRO put up Kennedy’s opinion for romer?
P.S.
My marriage here in Mass. is STILL
not being damaged by gays having equal rights here. Weird, because Pat Robertson swore it would.
You don’t seem to get it. The gay marriage issue is not about rights. Most States already have laws that allow gays to visit in the hospital, put the partner on their insurance plan, etc… All the “rights” that heterosexual marriages have. This is called the “domestic partners” law.
So why is it that even though the gays can have all the same rights as everyone else they are still pushing to have a “marriage”? Why? Because it’s not about rights. That’s just crap! It’s about normalizing deviance. It’s about trying to gain more acceptance for their deviant lifestyle.
So when you consider this issue understand that it has nothing to do with rights.
It’s about teaching little Johnny that that Adam and Eve can also be Adam and Steve!
[/quote]
Better late than never!
Too bad about your bigotry though.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
…That’s just crap! It’s about normalizing deviance. It’s about trying to gain more acceptance for their deviant lifestyle.
[/quote]
Congratulations Lorisco, you are a “homophobe”. Does it feel weird or squishy or something? We’re all curious, because the rest of us are able to look at a gay and see a person instead of an abstract object that makes us uncomfortable. Good luck on your closemindedness. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
[quote]dcb wrote:
Even though I disagree with Zeb about the issue of gay marriage, I think he’s right about what the word “know” means in the context of the chapters you two are discussing.
However, 100meters brings up a great question here:
100meters wrote:
Wouldn’t the logical assumption be he didn’t like rape?
It makes a lot more sense to me that the verses in question comdemn gang rape in general. Would it have been okay with God if the mob had wanted to “know” some females instead? I can’t imagine that under those circumstances it would have been okay.
Anyway, thank you Zeb and 100meters for your discussion. It’s been interesting and has prompted me to crack my Bible for the first time in many years. [/quote]
dcb:
Out of all of the acts that could have been shown in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the Bible shows the story of Lot.
I think that is interesting as it shows that a gang of men surrounded a house and demanded homosexual sex. Do you think this was the first time that the act of same gender sex took place in Sodom?
For a crowd of men to gather and demand same gender sex from strangers no less indicates to me that this (Same gender sex) was nothing new to them.
However, if you like there are other more specific references in the Bible which clearly state (as did Sodom and Gomorrah) that same gender sex is indeed a sin.
1Corinthians 6:9 & 10 are very clear as to the Bibles view on homosexuality:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The above is “Strong’s Version.” However every single version of any repute states basically the same thing! Naturally the homosexuals are busy attempting to rewrite this passage (as they are the many others that speak of homosexuality). However, the fact remains that (as I stated many posts ago) the Bible does in fact condemn homosexuality (same gender sex).
100meters might tell you that the word “homosexual” was not yet invented so how could it be in the Bible? True enough! The Greek word for “homosexual” was “arsenokoitai” which means “for one man to defile himself with another man.” Or, “one who lies with another male as he does with a female.” It is very clear!
Furthermore, the word “effeminate” means “malakoi.” those who want to defend homosexuality will tell you that it simply means “soft” as in fine linen. I wonder if they really expect us to believe that the Bible would keep out of Heaven all who are merely “soft.” I guess that would be another reason to lift weights huh?
Naturally, that is ridiculous!
“malakoi” does in fact mean “soft” but in a “feminine” way. It translates (the most ancient Hebrew translation) into meaning an “effeminite” man who submits to homosexual relations with another man."
In this case the person is “one who is penetrated (like a female) by another man.” This could be a “male prostitute” or anyone who submits to this act for whatever reason.
We then see in 1Corinthians 6:9 & 10 that not only are those homosexuals who might be “in love” kept out of the kingdom of Heaven, but also those who simply submit to the homosexual act whether for money, thrills or whatever reason!
Interestingly enough this passage, like many others that speak to homosexuality also state: “DO NOT BE DECIEVED.” Almost like a prediction that someone was going to come along and attempt a deception regarding this particular deed.
And they in fact have!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
…That’s just crap! It’s about normalizing deviance. It’s about trying to gain more acceptance for their deviant lifestyle.
Congratulations Lorisco, you are a “homophobe”. Does it feel weird or squishy or something? We’re all curious, because the rest of us are able to look at a gay and see a person instead of an abstract object that makes us uncomfortable. Good luck on your closemindedness. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.[/quote]
Hey, I gladly accept whatever term you want to use for me that makes you more comfortable. If saying that homosexuality is deviant is homophobic, than I’m a homophobe for sure.
Also, just because I don’t agree that Homo-ness is normal doesn’t mean I don’t see those who make that choice as a person. I just see that as a person who makes or made a poor choice.
Since you are all so PC and open minded, I guess you also can look at a person who wants to have sex with children as not an abstract object either? After all, wanting to have sex with children, dead bodies, donkeys, whatever… is all acceptable since we are all so open-minded and PC, right? You must be so proud!
Since it’s clear you must also believe in Darwin’s evolution theory, tell me, using Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” model, how could man have evolved with men having sex with men and women with women? Duh, you didn’t think about that did you sport!
The fact is sport, that in evolutionary theory, homosexuality would be weeded out as a genetic defect because it would not support survival of the species. (you know, same sex can’t produce children, duh!)
So no matter how you slice it, from a religious or scientific perspective, homosexuality IS deviant.