Genesis 19 and the carnal definition of 'know'

AdminBrian closed the latest homosexuality topic a while ago. I think he was probably right to do so, but the matter of the definition of 'know' was left unsettled and I'd like to explore it a bit more.The argument that 'know', as it is used in Genesis 19, means simply to 'know' as one might know the multiplication tables makes perfect sense, but I'm having a devil of a time trying to find a reliable etymology. I've been searching the web for about two hours now and I have come up with absolutely nothing, other than arguments similar to the one we were having in the earlier thread. I can't find anything that answers the question once and for all. I have no reason to doubt Rrhain's own research on the bible itself, and so far his is the most convincing argument I've seen. In glancing at a few biblical passages I see his point, but I don't have time to do a complete exegesis myself and I'm wondering if anyone can point me to one that's already been done.I still maintain that, if one accepts the fundamentalist view that 'know', when used in Genesis 19, means 'to know carnally', it is still grossly insufficient to establish that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. In order to reach that conclusion one must ignore the sin of rape. I still wonder if fundies honestly believe that gay sex between consenting adults is a worse sin than rape.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, I don't know what fundies would say, but certainly rape is a sin. However, the christian view must also be taken into account if we discuss a fundie. Now love fulfills the law, if people are consenting - and everybody is happy, then the obviousness of that teaching is apparent. But rape is simply an evil act - and certainly doesn't fulfill the law, as it indeed isn't love when there is a victim. So I guess it is obvious which one is sinful.Edit; Darn edits!!!again! Sorry, I may have gone a bit off topic, you don't have to respond if I am.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-31-2004 07:31 PM

My personal understanding of the Biblical tale of Sodom revolves around that belief that you must honor and protect a guest in your house at all costs. The guest, even your worst enemy, is near sacred when in your care.This, IMHO, was the great issue. It was not about sex, it was about hospitality, honor and the duty of a host to protect his guests under any and all provocation or threat.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:

quote:

---

My personal understanding of the Biblical tale of Sodom revolves around that belief that you must honor and protect a guest in your house at all costs. The guest, even your worst enemy, is near sacred when in your care.

---

Yes, but getting that point across to a fundie is almost impossible. Most fundies are no better at history than they are at grammar and spelling, so the point is lost on them. That's why I'm willing to take them at their word even when they say that 'know' means to 'know carnally'. Their logic implicating homosexuality doesn't work under any scenario they can propose because, if that is the definition of 'know' then clearly the men of Sodom were rapists.My biggest problem with this story has nothing to do with the definition of 'know' or hospitality. It has to do with Lot offering his virgin daughters to be gang-raped. His is likely the greatest cowardly act ever conceived. That this story is used to illustrate anything other than Lot's cowardice is utterly disgusting to me. The fact that Lot is referred to in the NT as a rightous man is more than enough in my mind to render the bible useless as a moral guidebook.I'm still interested in seeing a good etymology of the word 'know' if anyone can point me to one. An exegesis of its use in the Bible would also be appreciated.

berberry asks:

quote:

---

I'm still interested in seeing a good etymology of the word 'know' if anyone can point me to one. An exegesis of its use in the Bible would also be appreciated.

---

For a list of the 940+ instances of the word "yada" in the Bible, try here: Lexicon Results for yada` (Strong's 03045)Take a look at the best examples from that very story:Genesis 19:5: va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam
(And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.')Genesis 19:8: hi.ne-na li she.tei va.not a.sher lo-yad.u ish o.tsi.a-na et.hen a.lei.khem va.a.su la.hen ka.tov be.ei.nei.khem rak la.a.na.shim ha.el al-ta.a.su da.var ki-al-ken ba.u be.tsel ko.ra.ti
(Behold now, I have two daughters that 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; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.')In the former, the phrase is "ve.ned.a o.tam." In the latter, it is "lo-yad.u ish."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

However, regardless of the meaning of the word know, yhe line supports the hospitality issue. Once they were guests under his roof he was honor bound to do anything including sacrificing his family or himself to protect them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:

quote:

---

Once they were guests under his roof he was honor bound to do anything including sacrificing his family or himself to protect them.

---

No! I understand where you're coming from and I understand that you're technically correct, but no mere law or honor system is enough to compel one to offer one's virgin daughters to be gang-raped. If what you say is true, and if God knew it and allowed the system under which one could offer one's virgin daughters to be gang-raped to continue, then God is no better than Satan! Why the hell would anyone want to worship such a disgusting pervert as a God who would allow this situation to exist?So this is the God that hates homosexuality? And I'm supposed to care?

I personally don't believe that GOD hates homosexuals.If you have followed many of my posts, I hope that you have noticed that I view the Bible within the context of the time when various portions were written. Many parts of the Bible reflect behaviors and opinions that we commonly held at that time and place and that may seem outrageous when viewed from today's perspective.Frankly, at the time of the story of Lot and Sodom, women, particularly girl chidren, were considered little more than chattel. In addition, the rules of hospitality were extremely ridgid. If you actually read the full passage you will find that it was not GOD that made the offer, but Lot, a plain old human, one capable of making every possible error and mistake.Read a little further and you would find that the two stragers pulled Lot back in, said "Listen man, no need to do something that outlandish, just stand back while we kick butt and take names. It's time for you and your family to split this place because we are about to do some serious asswhomping".So GOD certainly would not have approved of Lot giving his daughters to the crowd, infact, did not allow it to happen and infact made his revulsion and displeasure with those who would break the laws of hospitality pretty evident.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Berberry:As you noted at the top of this thread, Brian closed the previous thread with the abrupt statement that "there are too many ignorant morons here ..."Is that your understanding of appropriate EvC discourse? Is it your experience that allowance for such abusive language is reserved for moderators?Actually, I can deal with being called an ignorant moron, but I was just wondering who else shares that status with me? Do you have a clue?Peace. Ab.

Hi Ab,I closed the thread because of the foul language of a few people that I consider to be ignorant morons. Considering the foul language and the audience we have here then no one except an ignorant moron would use the profanities thrown around on the thread.For your peace of mind, I did not consider you one of these 'ignorant morons', but they shouldn't be too difficult to identify.AdminBrian.This message has been edited by AdminBrian, 06-01-2004 11:54 AM

Yes, I have noticed that, jar. The post wasn't aimed directly at you (which I tried to establish in the opening sentences), rather it was aimed at this lovely bible story and those who want to impose its "lesson" on other people. I do take issue with one or two things you say, though:

quote:

---

Frankly, at the time of the story of Lot and Sodom, women, particularly girl chidren, were considered little more than chattel.

---

That's right. The problem is that this is God's word we're talking about. God knew that little female children were being grossly mistreated, but according to fundies the only thing he was concerned about was homosexuality! Fundies aside, at the very least God should have known that this sort of treatment of little girls was wrong. He's God after all! The fact that this is not the message of Gen 19 leaves no conclusion available other than that God is no better than Satan.Besides, taking Rrhain's point that 'know' in the context of Gen 19 (and I think he's correct) means merely 'know' as in 'I know I'm not voting for President Bush', then Lot offered his virgin daughters to be gang-raped to avoid even the questioning of his guests.

quote:

---

So GOD certainly would not have approved of Lot giving his daughters to the crowd, infact, did not allow it to happen and infact made his revulsion and displeasure with those who would break the laws of hospitality pretty evident.

---

Where is it evident? I've read the complete story and I don't see where God is reviled by Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to be gang-raped. I don't see where he reprimands Lot for being such a supreme coward.What I do see, when I read further still, is that Lot gets drunk and screws his two virgin daughters and gets them pregnant. I then see that the NT refers to Lot as a rightous man.

In Message 9, Jar says, "Many parts of the Bible reflect behaviors and opinions that were commonly held at that time and place and that may seem outrageous when viewed from today's perspective. Frankly, at the time of the story of Lot and Sodom, women, particularly girl children, were considered little more than chattel. In addition, the rules of hospitality were extremely rigid."Jar, you may wish to note that behaviors and opinions that we in the U.S. deem outrageously outdated are still commonly held to be law in other societies today. Females are still little more that chattel, and the rules of hospitality are still rididly enforced in the two countries our troops currently occupy. In fact, a large part of the problems we are having negotiating "democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq is due to our total disregard for the outdated customs that basically rule those two countries and the majority of nations that surround them.But, I digress ...Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-01-2004 12:09 PM

That's fine berberry. But again, the Bible was written by people living at a given time with all the baggage that implies. I guess that is why cringe when the literalists try to use the Bible to justify what I consider discrimination or really bad science.Once again, the tale of Lot is a great vehicle for demonstrating that very point. By today's standards there is no way to justify Lot's behaviour. But that is only if we try to twist the Bible to fit today's standards or today's science. Either way, if folk want a one to one correspondence between the world we observe or the moral standards we hold true today, we have to either twist the Bible or twist the observations.Neither works.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Abshalom writes:

quote:

---

Jar, you may wish to note that behaviors and opinions that we in the U.S. deem outrageously outdated are still commonly held to be law in other societies today.

---

If I may respond, Ab, I realize that. My whole point is that God should know that women and/or female children should not be treated this way. Yet he does nothing to stop it. If we take the fundamentalist view, then indeed God uses this story to condemn homosexuality but says not one word about the sins of rape and cruelty to women and little girls. In light of 1 Samuel 15, where God orders the genocide of an entire race of innocent people, including suckling infant babies, this isn't surprising.Again, my question to fundamentalists is this: how is this God any better than Satan? It's interesting that no one seems to want take this up.