Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

Dear Brain; As a hypothetical question, yes it is valid, but we don't know for sure one way or the other. I guess not being a reader of books, the publisher's name didn't mean any thing to you. The evidence is geological and is not disputed. Mind you, this is not archaeological evidence, but geologic evidence that the destructive event described in the Bible happened. (You should have been able to deduce that much from the sub title)"an outburst of smoke and rain of sulfurous fire reportedly accompanied the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24, 28). These material are interpreted as products of light fractions of hydrocarbons escaping from underground reservoirs and igniting upon reaching the surface. Presence of heavier hydrocarbons in the Dead Sea sub-surface is proved by numerous seepages as well as by the tar pits described in Genesis 14:10. Source rocks for these gases, oil and asphalt are in bituminous marls and limestones of late Cretaceous Period buried within the graben as well as the organic matter in overlying sediments of the Dead Sea Group (Figure 6.1 Top; Clapp, 1936; Nissenbaum and Goldberg, 1980; Rullkotter, Spiro and Nissenbaum, 1985; Tannenbaum and Aizenshtat, 1985; Aizenshtat, Mileslaviski, and Tannenbaum, 1986). The 'hydrocarbon fraction' could have been cracked and released from its source rocks because of beep burial and geothermal heating beneath the 6- to 10-km thickness of sediments of the Tertiary to Recent dead Sea Group. Asphalts probably were released near the margins of the graben and oils close to the axis where the sediments were thicker and the temperature higher. rejuvenated faulting associated with the Sodom and Gomorrah earthquake would have opened numerous channels for sudden escape of hydrocarbons, allowing much larger outburst and fires."
"The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho; Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background" David Neev, K.O. Emery, Oxford University Press, 1995. Pages 140-141.What we have here is that the destruction occurred, what hasn't been found was the target, but if destroyed ruins of the right age are found, you would have everything. Who knows, maybe someday the destroyed city sites will be found. I find the fact that the destruction matches the description in the Bible very compelling, it is like finding evidence of the Flood and merely arguing over the lack of finding the remains of flood victims. It can't be, it also can't be considered righteous ether, since it hasn't done anything one way or the other. The term for it is bisexual. Possibly only because they were Lot's family, or maybe they at the time had a righteous standing as well in God's eye. But considering Lot's wife only made it to outside the city, maybe not by much. There is also the factor of who they were going to marry, Lot who was 'tormented' by the lawless deeds of the people, never would have knowingly chosen such men as son-in-laws. These men were probably picked by Lot's wife or the daughters themselves, which finding such men acceptable would imply a lack of a love of righteousness, since a righteous person hates wickedness. No, Lot wasn't required to make the offer of his daughters, but he was required to protect his guests at all costs. We find in the simular case, basically same offer was made to protect the guest. (Judges 19:23-24) "At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: "No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUR eyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing." In that era, when you were a guest, you came under the host's protection. You may have heard references to this in old books, or in old movies, where the guests are said to be under the protection of the host's roof etc. A host was required to protect his guests. At Romans 3:9-11 Paul is talking about inherited sin, in this sense no one is righteous since we are all descended from Adam and are hence all born in sin. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) "For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin." This is the use of the term 'righteousness' in the absolute sense of being totally free of sin. While other verses in the Bible use the term righteousness in a lesser sense, for sinful men who do their very best to do what is right, and hence are 'righteous' in that sense. (Genesis 6:9) "Noah was a righteous man." Now Noah wasn't righteous by the standard of Romans 3:9-11 because he wasn't free of sin, but he was righteous in the lesser sense of a sinful man doing his best to serve God.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Brain; No he doesn't, he isn't talking about Sodom, he is using 'Sodom' as a name for the kingdom of Judah. (Ezekiel 16:46) "'And your older sister is Samaria herself with her dependent towns, who is dwelling on your left, and your sister younger than you, who is dwelling on your right, is Sodom with her dependent towns." Always check the context. In the verse you cited, Sodom is used as a symbol of total destruction by God, you can find this same usage in quite a number of verses through out the Bible. The arrogance and unconcern are the sins of Judah, not Sodom. The reason why Sodom was destroyed is stated in Jude.(Jude 7) "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."The reason for the destruction of Sodom was; 'committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use', not because of their inhospitality. If you read verse one in this chapter, this is when Jesus sent out the seventy to preach. It wasn't the failure to offer hospitality that the people would be condemned for, it was the reason why they didn't offer it, they were rejecting the message that Jesus' followers were bringing them. The message was that Jesus was the messiah, it was their rejection of that, which would condemn them. The term 'Sodom' here is once again used as an example of God's complete destruction of the wicked. Let's take a look and see.
(Isaiah 3:9) . . .The very expression of their faces actually testifies against them, and of their sin like that of Sodom they do tell. They have not hidden [it]. Woe to their soul! For they have dealt out to themselves calamity.
(Isaiah 13:19) . . .And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chaldeans, must become as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
(Jeremiah 23:14) . . .And in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen horrible things, committing adultery and walking in falsehood; and they have strengthened the hands of evildoers in order that they should not return, each one from his own badness. To me all of them have become like Sodom, and the inhabitants of her like Gomorrah."No mention of inhospitality in any of these verses or surrounding context. In Isaiah 3:9 Sodom is used as an example of extreme sinfulness. At Isaiah 13:19 Sodom is used as an example of complete destruction. At Jeremiah 23:14, Sodom is used as an example of extreme sinfulness.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

See message 14

Dear Rrhain; My mistake, yes this is a reference to Sodom and their sins in reference to Jerusalem and their sins. Did you read verse 50? (Ezekiel 16:50) "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]." The Revised Standard reads "abominable things", this verse is a reference to the homosexual practices of Sodom. Yes there is, you just missed it.
(Jude 7) "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."The phrase 'gone out after flesh for unnatural use' refers to homosexuality, which is why some Bibles are more direct in the wording used here in this verse.-- Living Bible
Jude 1:7 "And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men."Hope that is plain enough for you. In the Bible homosexual acts are stated to be unnatural or contrary to nature.(Romans 1:26-27) "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."In the Bible homosexuality is considered unnatural and obscene, and is an 'error' for which punishment is due, and those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom."What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men," (1 Corinthians 6:9)While Sodom's homosexuality was certainly not the city's only sin, it certainly was a sin in the eye's of God, and is listed in Jude as one of the main reasons why the city was destroyed. An interesting point on Jude 7, is that the inhabitants of Sodom are stated to have undergone "judicial punishment of everlasting fire" which means that they were destroyed for all time and have no hope of a resurrection. Their sinfulness merited not merely death, but the second death or eternal death. So the collective sins of Sodom were extreme in God's eyes and not a little matter that can be overlooked as many today seem to think.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Crashfrog; (Leviticus 18:22) "'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."
(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing."In the Bible, Homosexuality is a detestable thing, as the above verses show. But you are incorrect in assuming that I am saying that is the only sin referred to by the word 'detestable' in the Bible. (Proverbs 3:32) "For the devious person is a detestable thing to Jehovah," All sinful conduct is detestable to God. To understand what the detestable thing was referred to in Ezekiel 16:50 that they carried on in Sodom, one merely needs to look up Jude 7 "Sodom . . . had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use," or Genesis 19:4-5 "the men of Sodom, surrounded the house . . . "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." or you could just look the word 'sodomy' up in the dictionary. (Romans 1:26-27) "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are unnatural or contrary to nature. Paul here isn't saying that it never happens in animals, he is saying it isn't natural, or in harmony with the way God designed us. (Matthew 19:4-5) "Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh'?" God designed humans male and female, to be husband and wife, anything else in terms of 'alternative life styles' is unnatural and contrary to nature or the way God intended for us to live.As for the arguments justifying homosexuality based on animal behavior, how moral is it to base one's sexual habits on the conduct of animals? Wouldn't you be putting your conduct on the level of an animal? You can see animals do all sorts of really disgusting things, does that make it all right for you to do it too? I mean it is bad enough if you have to chase the neighbor's dog off your front yard.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Crashfrog; I hope you are just joking, or I am truly wasting my time trying to explain anything to you if you don't understand such a basic point. The term "to lie down with" is a phrase used to refer to having sex, it isn't limited to literally lying down. So no, standing up doesn't make it all right. (Genesis 4:1) "Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant." in both verses the word intercourse is used in the sexual sense of the word. Any more lamebrain comments? As I stated in my last post in the very next sentence as a matter of a fact. To rephrase the above in simpler terms, the biblical viewpoint of homosexual acts being unnatural is not a statement that they never occur in the animal kingdom, it is a statement that such acts are contrary to our design of being male and female. In the design sense, some animals do things that are unnatural or even self destructive, they were not meant or even sometimes not even designed to do such actions. While such actions can be said to be natural in the sense that an animal does them, they are not natural in the sense of natural normal healthy behaviour. Such animal actions are said to be unnatural behaviour. No he did not, that is just a lame excuse used by some to justify their deviant conduct. God could not have designed anyone to be gay, since in the Bible it is a sin, and designing someone in such a way would in itself be a sin, and God can not sin. (Psalm 18:30) "As for the [true] God, perfect is his way;" Perfection means that he is completely free of sin.There once was a argument in the scientific world that some homosexuality was caused by a brain defect, and as you can imagine this argument was soundly rejected by the gay community and was not supported by the evidence as being a general cause. But even if the argument was true, it would be a defect and not part of our original design, no more that any of the other inherited genetic diseases are. A possibly inherited physical cause also raised the possibility that deviant homosexual behaviour could be cured through correction of the supposed defect. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour, and anything that can be learned, can be unlearned or changed. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were." Some of the people to whom Paul wrote to had been homosexuals, but they no longer were, they changed what they were and that change was necessary to inherit the kingdom. If your justification for your conduct is that an animal does it, you have by definition, put your conduct on the level of an animal.Wm Scott Anderson

Dear crashfrog; The phrase occurs 6 times in Genesis and the usage in question (Leviticus 18:22)"'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman." is self explanatory. The audience that Leviticus was addressed to, was obviously familiar with the term. Even you knew what it meant when you first read it, you just didn't like what it said, so you tried to deflect it by making a lame joke. (Genesis 19:4-9) "the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." Finally Lot went out to them to the entrance, but he shut the door behind him. Then he said: "Please, my brothers, do not act badly. Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to YOU. Then do to them as is good in YOUR eyes. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof." At this they said: "Stand back there!" And they added: "This lone man came here to reside as an alien and yet he would actually play the judge. Now we are going to do worse to you than to them."So let me get this straight, you are saying that the men of Sodom just wanted to talk to Lot's visitors, and Lot thought that would be a great badness if they did, and instead offered to let them talk to his daughters who had never talked to a man before? I am beginning to think that you are simply turning into a troll or have had a recent serious head injury. Unnatural- 2a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSE, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. I guess the dictionary is playing along with me too. If you wish to claim that it has been proven that homosexuality is strictly an inherited thing and is not at all a matter of choice, I doubt you will find any support in science for such an extreme position. Perhaps for possible inherited effects that could predispose a person towards such a thing, but it would still be a matter of choice and learned behaviour, and I doubt that there is even any solid evidence towards any 'biological' inherited factor at all. Cite your references.As I said before, even allowing for the possibility that there was a inherited influence, it would still be like a inherited disease and not part of how we were meant to be. God when he designed us, no more meant for us to get sick and die, then he did for any one to be homosexual. Over time living organisms have mutations occur in their genetic code which are passed on to their descendants, it is called evolution. That is how inherited diseases came about, unless you wish to blame God for all genetic defects calling each one a special creation. It is illogical and is in conflict with scripture, to say that God caused some people to be born homosexual and then condemned them for being homosexual.(Deuteronomy 32:4-5) "The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted!"(Ecclesiastes 7:29) "the [true] God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans." I never said that you were, I used the term 'your' in the general sense of meaning everybody. But I am glad that you clarified your sexual orientation, since from what you posted in regard to homosexuality, "So do it standing up. God apparently doesn't have a problem with that." you did give the impression that were a participant in such activities, but clearly you didn't mean it that way.I always get a kick out of this point in the discussion when the person defending homosexuality feels it necessary to clarify that he isn't gay. If being gay is so OK, why the worry of being accidently considered gay? You defend it, but at the same time you just want to make sure everybody knows that you are not one of 'them'.Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Rrhain;I assume you are getting all this from some book, well that book or what ever is dead wrong and I mean wrong. For starters, for your theory to be correct, everyone else would have to be wrong. I mean that all christian religions over the past two millenniums and the Jews for even longer before that, would have to be completely wrong on their interpretation of whole sections of the Bible. We are talking about a very basic point here, one that if you took christian religions that disagree on major issues like the Trinity, hell fire, immortality of the soul, you name it, but they would all agree on this one issue. Plus you would have to add a whole list of Bible scholars and translators that all conflict with what you are saying. There must be a basic reason why they all disagree with your interpretation, the only answer that I can see is that you are wrong. Just reading the accounts myself, I find your interpretation highly implausible, nonsensical and in conflict with the meaning and intent of quite a number of Bible verses. It appears that your source for this nonsense is trying to reinterpret the Bible in a more politically correct manner to be more acceptable to today's viewpoint of what is morally right. But that attempt fails, because while men change, God never changes. Incorrect, Leviticus 18 is a listing of individual commands, just look at Leviticus 18:24 "'Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things," or are you going to say that the very next verse was only wrong in connection with false worship but is acceptable in itself?
(Leviticus 18:23) "'And you must not give your emission to any beast to become unclean by it, and a woman should not stand before a beast to have connection with it. It is a violation of what is natural."
It seems to me that all of your arguments could also be used to support this as well, are you going to tell me this is OK too? At Leviticus 20:13 where the prohibition against homosexuality is repeated, it also states (Leviticus 20:12) "And where a man lies down with his daughter-in-law, both of them should be put to death without fail. They have committed a violation of what is natural." Are you going to tell me it is OK for your father to have sex with your wife as long as it is not part of temple prostitution? Notice the use of the word natural again. You could probably find an analogy for this in the animals, would that make it OK? I hope you can see what a ridiculous line of argument you have endorsed. I have had a very hard time taking you seriously and still wonder if you are just trolling and laughing your head off that I am dumb enough to even to bother to respond to such obvious nonsense. There is nowhere in the Bible that a temple is even mentioned as being in Sodom. If that was the 'real' meaning, it would certainly have been at least mentioned. While what we do have in Jude 7, is the use of the Greek word porneia which basically refers to sex outside of marriage, and the phrase 'flesh for unnatural use' which older bibles sometimes render as 'strange flesh' and modern Bibles render more clearly as relating to homosexual acts and other sexual perversions. The NIV renders it "sexual immorality and perversion" NJB "sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts" NAB "sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice" REB "committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts" NRSV "sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust" GNB ""sexual immorality and perversion" In none of these translations or any translation for that matter, is there any mention of this sexual misconduct being done in connection with temple prostitution. In giving the reasons for the destruction of Sodom, the sexual misconduct is listed at Jude 7 as the reason the citys were destroyed, without any reference to other sins or circumstances as a required condition under which they were committed. According to Jude, the reason Sodom was destroyed was for the rampant immorality and sexual perversions. And when the FBI surrounds the house, they bring their young boys with them. (Genesis 19:4) "the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man," Why did the boys come but not one woman was in the crowd, if it was a sexist town, why if the young boys were there, the young girls all stayed home? Why was this little outing only for the males of the town, humm, what possible reason could there be for that? And if they truly only wanted to know who the two strangers were, why didn't they ask them when they were in the city gates earlier, the important men of the town generally sat in the gates. That was where Lot met the angels, and talked to them, if the leading men of the city wanted to ask them anything, they could have easily done so right on the spot. That was one of the reasons why they sat in the gates. The middle of the night questioning session idea, makes no sense, when they had the opportunity earlier and what couldn't wait till morning and what motivated every male in town to be there, but not one of the women?You are also goofing up here too, it seems like you are merely trolling when you see a sexual context on the part of Lot's offer of his daughters, but don't see one on the part of the men of Sodom. Like I stated above in my post to Crashfrog, if by your crazy logic, the men of Sodom were only asking to talk to the two men, then Lot must have been merely saying don't bother my tried guests, talk to my daughters instead who never get to talk to men. If you are going to act crazy you need to be consistent in your delusions or people will know that you are faking it and just making it up as you go.In regards to your second post: Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife;" Animals are not intelligent and have no free will as man does, so they can not willfully work against God. Gay animals? or just observation basis. Just confused animals, they don't know any better, we do. They also eat their young, commit incest, and eat their own poop, do you wish to justify any of that behaviour as being fine for humans too? Animals are animals, while some people act like animals, that is not the way we are to be. I doubt that Paul made up the word "arsenokoitai," the meaning is: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter BibleNow even if Paul or somebody else made up the word, the word is made up from two base words; (730 arrhen- a male) and (2845 koite-cohabitation or sexual intercourse) which gives the meaning of a male who has intercourse with another male, a homosexual. So even merely putting the two root words together gives the same meaning that is given for the word as a whole, plus even a reference to a 'sodomite', how much plainer could it be?As for your 'theory' that Paul really meant male temple prostitutes, the Greek word 'malakos' or prostitute appears in the verse at 1 Corinthians 6:9 but appears ahead of the term 'arsenokoites' and is separated by the Greek word rendered 'nor' making it a separate offense.1 Corinthians 6:9 "E ouk oidate hoti adikoi Theou basileian oukleronomesousin? Me planasthe, oute pornoi outeeidololatrai oute moichoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai"Plus at 1 Timothy 1:10 where Paul again uses the word 'arsenokoites', the word 'malakos' or prosititute, isn't used at all in the verse.
1 Timothy 1:10 "pornois, arsenokoitais,andrapodistais, pseustais, epiorkois, kai ei ti heteronte hugiainouse didaskalia antikeitai"In both verses Paul is discussing sinful conduct, there is no mention in ether chapter of false temple worship or temple male prostitutes, that subject wouldn't even make sense if the term 'male temple prostitute' was pasted into the verse. The context in both verses clearly is a discussion of various sinful conduct that a person could do, neither is discussing false worship or temple prostitutes. Not only does your argument have a complete lack of support, the verses cited clearly and flatly contradicted it by the Greek wording used by Paul. For that matter, if the correct translation of 'arsenokoitais' is really 'male temple prostitute' why doesn't any Bible translations render it that way? If you were right, newer translations would render it that way, they don't because that isn't what the word means. The word means something to the effect of 'men who lay with men' and the vast majority of translations render it with a meaning to that effect.As for your argument that if it fits, it is natural and is OK, the same argument can be, and has been used by child molesters to justify their actions. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. You can stick your finger or whatever, in a light socket, do you want to argue that is 'Natural' and is the thing to do too? Somebody really needs to flip the switch so you can 'see' the light that what you are saying is really a bad idea. Your whole line of thinking seems to be immoral and without conscience, an 'anything goes' or 'if it feels good do it' attitude. Which is in complete conflict with the whole point of God's Word and Christianity.(1 Timothy 4:1-2) "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron;"You have become 'branded' or burned in your conscience so that it has become insensitive or burned out, so that you no longer have an accurate feeling for what is right or wrong. You have lost your moral compass and have been mislead by "teachings of demons".Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear crashfrog; More proof that common sense isn't common any more. There was a provision for everyone to know and understand what was the intent of the law.
(Nehemiah 8:7-8) "even the Levites, were explaining the law to the people, while the people were in a standing position. And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the law of the [true] God, it being expounded, and there being a putting of meaning [into it]; and they continued giving understanding in the reading." Only because you don't understand the context. See the last post in the previous thread and see also (Judges 19:22-25) "the men of the city, mere good-for-nothing men, surrounded the house, shoving one another against the door; and they kept saying to the old man, the owner of the house: "Bring out the man that came into your house, that we may have intercourse with him." At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: "No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUR eyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing." And the men did not want to listen to him. Hence the man took hold of his concubine and brought her forth to them outside; and they began to have intercourse with her," If you are arguing that it is an inherited condition, then it certainly would be, I believe it is a learned behaviour. (Romans 1:27) "even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene"
(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."
(1 Corinthians 6:9) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,"
(Jude 7) "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."Those who unrepentedly practice homosexuality which the Bible calls obscene, detestable, unnatural, will under go the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. The Bible does condemn homosexuality. People like you do homosexuals a great disservice by lying to them and letting them believe that what they do is OK with God, when they should be warned that unless they repent, they are facing God's wrath. (Ezekiel 3:18) "When I say to someone wicked, 'You will positively die,' and you do not actually warn him and speak in order to warn the wicked one from his wicked way to preserve him alive, he being wicked, in his error he will die, but his blood I shall ask back from your own hand."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

So homosexual rape or something akin to it is basically what you are saying the Greek word arsenokoites means. I can see how you have come to your conclusion. But all Bible translations render it as homosexual or use a term that can be understood as referring to it.. No doubt part of the reason they do so is the context, the Bible is very clear on condemning Homosexuality, and it would be illogical for Paul to condemn homosexual rape or whatever and not condemn heterosexual rape in the same verse.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom."
(1 Timothy 1:8-10) "Now we know that the Law is fine provided one handles it lawfully in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching."Considering that Paul listed all these sins, if in both verses he had indeed been referring to homosexual rape rather than just homosexual acts, why didn't he include rape? Now the argument I have been rebutting, is that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, which as you undoubtedly know is a ridiculous argument. Now considering that fact that homosexuality is condemned as a sin in the Bible, I can't see Paul listing homosexual rape and not mentioning other homosexual acts. So a limited application of the word would run contrary to the intended meaning of the verse, and is probably part of the reason why no translation renders it that way.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear crashfrog; I was pointing out the people who were under the law would of had no problem understanding the law, since it was regularly read and explained to them. So you point of misinterpreting the wording, would not have applied to them. The modern word for it is bisexual. (Jude 7) "committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use," I explained Lot's possible motivation and reasoning on why he did what he did, in the last post in the earlier thread. It is not a matter of straw men, it is a matter of a difference in definitions. Behavior is the definition, you are what you do. One isn't a 'homosexual' until one acts as one, that is a choice. Orientation is effected by many factors, some of which may have occurred very early in the person's life, and there is some thought that a lack of male hormones could be part of the cause for homosexual attractions, but acting on the attraction is still a choice. A person with a very strong homosexual orientation who chooses not to act that way, is not a homosexual as I see it, he has chosen not to be. Such people with effort over time have changed there orientation and many are now happily heterosexuals. People can change, they can break very addictive drug habits, drinking problems, recover from depression and change their very personality. The "passages are quite tricky" only if you are trying to get them to say something other than what they say, because the wording is so simple and straight forward.
(Leviticus 18:22) "'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."There is no evidence that there was any kind of restriction of interpretation on the verses, they are very straight forward, "you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman" because "It is a detestable thing." and the punishment for this crime "They should be put to death without fail." How hard is it to understand that? Three simple parts, 'don't do this' 'it is very bad' and 'execute those who do this' That is what Moses was saying, we see the same structure repeated hundreds of times in the law code. Each individual command was to be obeyed under penalty of death, that was what Moses told the Jews.
(Leviticus 18:24-29) "'Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, . . YOU must not do any of all these detestable things, . . In case anyone does any of all these detestable things, then the souls doing them must be cut off from "One of those detestable things was homosexual acts, it was specifically prohibited and any one breaking that command was to executed.We can also turn this around and look at it the other way, for instance, if homosexual acts were not condemned, where are the laws governing them? I mean look at all the laws covering heterosexual acts, why not any laws covering homosexual acts? If heterosexual sex outside of marriage was forbidden, why is the law silent on homosexual acts outside of marriage and why is there no menton or regulation of 'gay marriages' or whatever? If there were any approved homosexuals in the Jewish community, there would have been laws governing them just as there were laws that covered all the details of heterosexual life. There can be but one answer to this question, that under the law, the governing of any homosexuals were fully covered by Leviticus 20:13 "'They should be put to death without fail." That is the only way to explain the complete lack of commandments for homosexual daily living in such a detailed law code as the Mosaic law, you don't need daily living regulations for the dead.Shows how foolish it is to try and say that homosexuality was not condemned by a law code that viewed merely cross dressing as detestable. (Deuteronomy 22:5) "No garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Rrhain; Ahem, and what book would that be? I would like to check the reviews. Or do you wish to claim that this theory comes straight from your personal study of the Bible? As for my understanding of Hebrew, it is limited to what I can look up in reference books and with an idea as far off the beaten path as yours, my resources are limited. I will have to go along with the far more knowledgeable biblical scholars on this point. Checking both verses I find the same Strong number 3045 for 'yada' and in both cases it is rendered as 'know' or knew' and in both cases it is the context that tells me it means sexual contact. The scholars agree and modern Bible translations render it that way. The context is the same in Hebrew or English, 'Adam knew his wife" etc, it is the same with the second verse as well, the context clearly indicates it was a sexual meaning of the word know or yada. Plus we have the other references such Jude 7 and others that confirm that it was a sexual situation. That would be news to me that they could be so far off, will have to check on this. And what is the Orthodox Jewish attitude towards Homosexuality? Sooo, you are saying that all the Bible Scholars and Translators are part of a giant conspiracy against homosexuals. Spanning hundreds of years, untold numbers of these respected scholars have gotten together to change the Bible to make it look like God condemns homosexuals when he really doesn't. And this sounds like a believable theory to you? Even with all those homosexuals which have undoubtably staffed the Catholic church and other churches, they were all biased gay bashers? Covering up the biggest secret of all time, that God really loves gays? Attacking conspiracy theories is a waste of time since those who promote them want to believe in them and they merely just keep making it bigger and more complicated each time you put out a flaw. There is always some connection, between things and all verses in the Bible have various sorts of interconnections and of course many of the commands are grouped by related subjects. . But these interconnections DO NOT invalidate each commandment as an independent commandment.
(Leviticus 18:22) "'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."There is no evidence that there was any kind of restriction of interpretation on the verses, they are very straight forward, "you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman" because "It is a detestable thing." and the punishment for this crime "They should be put to death without fail." How hard is it to understand that? Three simple parts, 'don't do this' 'it is very bad' and 'execute those who do this' That is what Moses was saying, we see the same structure repeated hundreds of times in the law code. Each individual command was to be obeyed under penalty of death, that was what Moses told the Jews.
(Leviticus 18:24-29) "'Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, . . YOU must not do any of all these detestable things, . . In case anyone does any of all these detestable things, then the souls doing them must be cut off from "One of those detestable things was homosexual acts, it was specifically prohibited and any one breaking that command was to executed.We can also turn this around and look at it the other way, for instance, if homosexual acts were not condemned, where are the laws governing them? I mean look at all the laws covering heterosexual acts, why not any laws covering homosexual acts? If heterosexual sex outside of marriage was forbidden, why is the law silent on homosexual acts outside of marriage and why is there no menton or regulation of 'gay marriages' or whatever? If there were any approved homosexuals in the Jewish community, there would have been laws governing them just as there were laws that covered all the details of heterosexual life. There can be but one answer to this question, that under the law, the governing of any homosexuals were fully covered by Leviticus 20:13 "'They should be put to death without fail." That is the only way to explain the complete lack of commandments for homosexual daily living in such a detailed law code as the Mosaic law, you don't need daily living regulations for the dead. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. If it is a capital offense for a man to have sex with another man, it obviously would be just as wrong for a woman to have sex with another woman. There is no evidence of this giant anti-gay conspiracy that you keep referring to every time the biblical evidence disproves your pet theory, and the use of the Greek word porneia as part of the reason why Sodom was destroyed, proves beyond doubt, that their crime was at least in part sexual in nature. The second part, 'strange flesh' is an old reference to perverted or 'strange' sex or flesh, so it could be taken to mean 'perverted sex' which of course would refer to non heterosexual sex acts. The new Bibles of course render this in modern English as 'homosexual' in nature, which is what the old English phrase meant anyway. Well your reading of Genesis 19 is unique. Now if it was as you say, then Lot could not have done what you say and still be counted a righteous man. It would be one thing if he was trying to distract a sex crazed homosexual group would be rapists which included his future son in laws, by offering them his daughters while knowing that hearing him make such an offer would move the two angels to intercede in his family's behalf, but if the crowd only wanted to ask a few questions, Lot's actions become very unrighteous and ridiculously inappropriate. If he had responded to merely questioning group of townsmen with a suggestion they go rape his daughters, his conduct would make him a wicked man. At that point the angels would have just though 'wasted trip' and left. The only reason Lot was saved was that he was a righteous man, your reinterpretation would conflict with that, so it logically is in conflict with the very context and point of this account and is obviously wrong. Your analysis of the Hebrew wording has to viewed in the light of the fact that none of the biblical scholars who worked on Bible translations agrees with you. ( I know, it is all a conspiracy!) The phrase "all the people from every quarter" is referring the group mentioned in the first part of the sentence, the men of sodom, they were all there from every quarter or the whole town, all of them. This is a basic sentence logic construct that you are tripping over here. Speaking of the husband of the capable wife the Bible states. (Proverbs 31:23) "Her owner is someone known in the gates, when he sits down with the older men of the land." The important men of the city gathered at the city gates, where the older men acted as judges and decided legal cases and business transaction took place. The hub of the men's social activity was the city gate, that is why Lot was there when the angels came, he didn't know that they were coming and at first didn't even know who they were. It was probably common practice to question new arrivals for news and see if they were a threat, so if it was merely questions that needed to be asked, they would have asked them at the gate and not later in the night. It is called curtesy, and no I did not condemn you as a psychotic, I gave you a warning of the grave moral danger you are in.so once again.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Rrhain; First off, you can't make any one gay, it is a matter of personal choice. As for physiological factors that predispose some towards homosexual orientation, lack of a strong male role model is a frequently cited factor. But no doubt there are quite a number of environmental factors that can effect one's sexual orientation while growing up. As for adults, while we may view ourselves as our sexual orientation being 'cast in concrete', that is not the case as there is considerable plasticness to the human mind. Our out look is shaped by the things we experience as is seen in cultural assimilation, how a person slowly becomes an integral part of a new culture over time. People like to think that they can watch or read what every they want without any effect on themselves, but that is not true. Over time what we expose ourselves to does have a changing effect on us. So basically if you surf enough gay sites, see enough gay films, and hang out with enough gay friends, it will have an effect on you. There is the very real possibility that enough exposure to this sort of thing could alter your orientation. But as I said it is a matter of choice, and even with heavy exposure, a person could still reject it of course, but the environment can be a powerful influence, just look at war fever for example. Cute, you should write fiction, got a chuckle out of your post. Personally I find the supporting evidence of Jehovah God's existence overwhelming, there are many lines of solid evidence. But everyone makes up their own mind on that, and that is another topic all together. It is also another topic, but there is no literal hell, in the Bible hell just refers to being dead. Your description of plenty of food and challenging mental puzzles sounds more like paradise to me any way.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; You are of course technically correct, but not very plausible. The scholarship that goes into making Bible translations is of course generally the best available at the time the translation was made. And while each translation represents the understanding at the time it was made, we have many translations that have been made over time. Using those translations we get a sort of shifting time line as the understanding on various words hopefully improved over time. 1 Corinthians 6:9 King James (1611) "abusers of themselves with mankind,"-- Revised Standard (1952) "sexual perverts," Simple English "homosexuals." NIV 1995 "homosexual offenders" New World Translation (1997) "men who lie with men" Over time with progressively better understanding of biblical Greek, the wording used has become more precise in its meaning, and that meaning is 'homosexual' or a clear reference to it by phrases such as "men who lie with men". So over time as the understanding of Greek word Arsenokoites has improved, it has become progressively clearer that it refers to homosexuals when used in the Bible. The whole of biblical Greek scholarship as represented in Bible translations over time is like a giant arrow pointing towards the now accepted meaning for the word. While the counter argument isn't used in a single Bible translation and seems to be without any real support. Even the evidence that was posted for it, the current definition would fit and work well. So I can see no evidence that would merit overturning the whole world of biblical Greek knowledge on this word for what is probably an agenda based minority view interpretation. If you are here by dropping the homosexual portion of your word definition, your new definition no longer fits the evidence you used to support it. Which would leave your new definition without any evidence at all, while the current definition has plenty of support. Paul is in my opinion the most logical of all the Bible writers, just consider the complex logic he used in his letters, and just how logical and clear cut his arguments are.The reason why there is no mention of rape in this verse is simple logic, if fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts, are all condemned in this verse, there is no need to mention all of the variations of these sins. By listing the main categories, Paul included all of the sub categories. While if he had mentioned 'homosexual rape' instead of 'homosexual' it does raise the logical problem of why heterosexual rape and other homosexual relationships are not mentioned. (Leviticus 18:22) "'And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing."
In Leviticus the implied context is that it is between consenting adults, it states that one must not lie down with a man as with a woman, it is speaking in general terms of homosexual sex and normal heterosexual sex, of which rape is not the norm and consenting adults is. So there is nothing at all in this verse or it's twin, that would imply that only non consensual homosexual acts were forbidden, the prohibition is universal and total. Paul does not condemn all sexuality or the very chapter you referred to wouldn't say (1 Corinthians 7:3) "Let the husband render to [his] wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to [her] husband." What Paul is talking about in the chapter is that if one feels no need of marrying, it would be better to remain single so as to have more freedom to pursue kingdom interests. While Paul encourages singleness for those with "the gift" for it, he in no way condemns marriage or marital sexual relations. The Greek world was renowned for homosexuality, as were other ancient cultures, why in the Bible we have to references to Gay towns which were destroyed, and specific prohibitions and condemnations. The idea that homosexual acts between adults was unknown in common knowledge in ancient times is empty headed. To quote Solomon, (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10) "there is nothing new under the sun. Does anything exist of which one may say: "See this; it is new"? It has already had existence for time indefinite; what has come into existence is from time prior to us." homosexuality is as old as time and is not a new thing at all. Like the 'oldest profession' it has been around a long time.Sincerely Yours; Wm. Scott Anderson.

Dear Brennakimi; God hardening Pharaoh's heart is commonly misunderstood as a direct act of God when it can be said that God hardened his heart by allowing him to do so. King James Exodus 7:3 "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart," does give that impression, while a better rendering of the meaning of the verse would be, NWT-Exodus 7:3 "I shall let Pharaoh's heart become obstinate," which is of course what happened as shown by, Exodus 8:15 "When Pharaoh got to see that relief had taken place, he made his heart unresponsive; and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had spoken." Most translations will get this verse right, but many still mess up this next verse, here is a correct rending from the NWT (Exodus 9:12) "But Jehovah let Pharaoh's heart become obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had stated to Moses." while many Bibles still have Jehovah hardening Pharaoh's heart, when he merely let Pharaoh harden his heart. God can be said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart only in the sense that he let him, for Jehovah can easily cause a King to do was he wants him to do.(Proverbs 21:1) "A king's heart is as streams of water in the hand of Jehovah. Everywhere that he delights to, he turns it." Jehovah could have directed Pharaoh to do what ever God wanted him to do, but instead he allowed Pharaoh to be obstinate so he had the opportunity to show his power in delivering his people.The reference on David that you are thinking of is -- King James 2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." Now the question is who is the he in this verse? The NWT again has a better rendering "And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: "Go, take a count of Israel and Judah." While in the KJV the sentence structure certainly makes it sound like God is the he while the NWT speaks of 'one' which is someone else other than God doing the inciting. The NWT has the correct rendering as shown by what is stated at; 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel." So the he in 2 Samuel 24:1 is not God but Satan. The only way God can be said to have incited David, is in allowing Satan to test David.(James 1:13-14) "When under trial, let no one say: "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson