Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 203 of 213 (193400)
03-22-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Taqless
03-22-2005 12:08 PM


Re: The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are unnatural or contrary to nature.
eh, i sometimes have a little difficulting citing sources here though. i'm just reporting what i've learned in class.
and i must admit, i'm not real familiar with solomon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Taqless, posted 03-22-2005 12:08 PM Taqless has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 206 of 213 (193903)
03-24-2005 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by wmscott
03-22-2005 5:49 PM


Re: A parting shot
Some on this board have foolishly attempted to say that in the above verse that the word translated as "men who lie with men" should really be translated as 'male temple prostitute' or 'men who lay with boys' which would restrict Paul's condemnation to certain homosexual situations instead of homosexuality in general. Their arguments of course failed because they had no merit, they were simply wrong.
yes. that was me. my evidence for that matter is that every other usage of the word OUTSIDE THE BIBLE is applied to an adult man and a young boy. every other use. and no, it doesn't restrict anything. i'm well aware paul condemns homosexuality. i think the point of that may have been the modern equivalent of statutory rape: taking advantage of people not yet old enough to make up their own minds responsibly.
As shown by the fact that nearly all modern Bible translations render the term as 'homosexual' or an equivalent phrase.
consider the following verse:
quote:
Exd 15:4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.
99% of all translations i've looked at render this as "Red Sea."
wanna look at a map for a second and tell me where the gulf of aqaba stops and the red sea starts? little preposterous for moses to cross the gulf, let alone the sea. he'd have to go 300 miles -- on foot -- out of his way, cross more than a hundred miles of sea, and end up in saudi arabia, not sinai.
why bring this up? the bible doesn't say "Red Sea." it says "sea of reeds." somebody made a typo back in 1611. in this case, they rendered, get this, an egyptian word wrong. here we have some of the only validation that the hebrew might have been egypt, and they got it confused. when modern translators run into this, they STILL get confused. so what do they do? open up their other translations. oh, everyone else has it that, must be right.
sorry, but translators do not always know what they're doing, and here we have an instance where they have consistently gotten a word wrong for at least 400 years. in almost every translation. only the jps has it right.
want another confirmation? look at the religious bias in the translations of arsenokoites. suppose we ignore the context, and we look at the word itself. man-couch. all it means, basically, is "lays with men."
quote:
for them that defile themselves with mankind
where'd the defile come from?
quote:
for sodomites
where'd they got sodom from?
quote:
for abusers of themselves with men
where'd the abuse aspect come from?
quote:
homosexuals
i'll allow it for now.
now, let's look at some translations that DO NOT translate it with any connotation of homosexuality, or where homosexuality is not the key issue, since you insist they don't exist.
The Latin Vulgate: masculorum concubitores. (paid for male sex slaves [of men])
Louis Segond (1910): les infames (the infamous)
Goodspeed Bible (1951): given to unnatural vice
Jerusalem Bible (1955): people with infamous habits
Phillips (1958): pervert
Jerusalem Bible (1968): child molesters
Revised Standard Version (1971): sexual perverts.
now, all but TWO of those are more modern than your nwt (1949).
Paul clearly stated that such acts were "contrary to nature" or unnatural and "obscene".
paul also says that it's against nature for men to have long hair. jesus was an orthodox jew 2000 years ago: he had long hair. it's actually against the bible to cut your hair.
now, one of those is full of it. which one do you think? paul, leviticus, or jesus?
and that the Bible condemns all sex acts outside of marriage (not going to get into the issue of marital oral & anal sex, since that has to be inferred by deducing general biblical principles.)
two questions.
1. have you seen Anal Sex According to the Word of God ?
2. if gay marriage is allowed, is homosexual relations still bad, considering paul's point was sex out of wedlock?
now, back to the point at the beginning.
To gain God's approval, a person must stop doing what God considers wrong. (Duh!)
quote:
Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard
do you shave? cut your hair? you should stop, otherwise you'll never gain god's approval.
quote:
Lev 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD.
got any tatoos or piercings? those are gonna have to go too. otherwise, you'll never gain god's approval.
quote:
Lev 19:30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I [am] the LORD.
do you work saturdays? you should stop that, otherwise you'll never gain god's approval.
quote:
Exd 23:19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
eat cheese on your sandwich today? better not do that, or you'll never gain god's approval.
quote:
Lev 11:7-8 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.
was that a ham and cheese sandwich? maybe a bacon cheeseburger? better not have any of those either, or you'll never gain god's approval.
quote:
Lev 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
do hug your wife when she's having her period? better not do that. you'll never gain god's approval. oh, but you say, homosexuality is an ABOMINATION. alright, bring on the abominations.
quote:
Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:
well, that pretty much screws red lobster. eat there, and you're going to hell.
quote:
Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you.
kfc's out too. and i certainly hope you didn't eat turkey last tahnksgiving, otherwise, you're going to hell.
quote:
Lev 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
don't touch cockroaches. or you're going to hell.
quote:
Lev 19:7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it [is] abominable; it shall not be accepted.
leave your leftovers in the fridge too long? you're going to hell.
tell me, sinner, are you right with god? or do you persist in your sin?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-24-2005 02:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by wmscott, posted 03-22-2005 5:49 PM wmscott has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 210 of 213 (193966)
03-24-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by contracycle
03-24-2005 4:49 AM


Re: stith-thompson
... contradicts the claim the claim that Sodomites were preying on passers by, and thus violated hospitality. Please stick to your own argument, or at least indicate which variant of your rapidly changing story you want addressed.
how? abram clobbers their enemies on account of lot. so they's gonna be nice to lot for a while
... ALSO contradicts the claim that the Sodomites are preying on passers by, becuase the angels walk up unmolested. Once again you keep citing stuff that is CONTRARY to your own argument.
do you make this stuff up? where'd you get "passers by" from, exactly? hmm? visitors. foriegners. people from out of town. who, like, actually come into their city. not just walk by.
... despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to think that they HAVE any such obligation towards Lot.
no, that's not what i said at all. their CRIME is that they have no such obligation to respect lot's duty. that's accusation the text is making. lot has the duty, and i think you will agree to that. they attempt to get in his way.
there is absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever; it is wholly out of place in the setting. Can you provide any evidence at all which supports this interpretation?
and yet 600 years later (after genesis's final redaction), josephus includes that in his list of sins. tell me, at what point do teh anachronism and actual data conflict? cause that jesus line drives it back another 100 years. and ezekiel drive it back even further. and considering that the talmud is the mishna of the oral law, it's traditions are actually MUCH older than the 200 ad text.
so tell me, at what point will you just have to give up and accept that all the other writing of period simply disagrees with your incorrect assesment of the people?
No, nonsense. What evidence do you have for this claim? Travellers had NO right to expect protection from anyone; they were on their own. And they were doing exactly what travellers DO have the right to do, which is take up residence in the city square. If the Sodomites were being bad to travellars, why did they let them in the city gate in the first place?
hi. reading comprehension time again.
genesis 19:1. LOT MEETS THEM. he's watching the city gate, for some reason. he gets to them before anyone else. in fact, a reasonable reading would be that he meets to prevent such a conflict.
Once again this makes no sense.
only because you apparently can't read.
Then you have completely missed the point. Where are the external examples of similar myths? Eh? I'm still waiting. But you cannot produce any becuase there are not any.
what happened to city in baucis?
look, the point is not even that. you just don't seem to get this. sure, the fact it's collective is unusual. it's not that that has in common with other myths (although some do have similar aspects). it's the setup. it's setup like a hospitality myth.
knock knock.
who's there?
...to get to the other side.
doesn't matter if the punch line is another kind of joke, it's still a knock knock joke. and if i told you that joke, and said "knock knock" you'd say "who's there?" jokes and myths actually have a lot in common: mnemonic devices.
now, you asked for a list of myths having similar traits. i listed myths with similar setups. you asked for extra biblical literature. i gave you literature that's damned near contemporary that reads it my way. you're arguing against 2000 years of jewish opinion, and insisting that they didn't interpret it that way.
I don't consider analysis of Jewish Religion by Jews, oir christian religion by christians, to be free of self-serving bias. Thats exactly whay I am looking for material unrelated to Sodom specifically to test the validity of your claims.
no. that's completely invalid. we're looking at interpretation BY THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. understand? i don't care if you think their interpretation is right or wrong. i don't care if it IS right or wrong. you're insisting that such an idea did not exist when people wrote the story. and i'm proving that it certainly did within the same time frame you were off by: 600 years.
You're an arrogant fucker for someone who's claims have been consistently dismantled.
wanna take a poll?
you've been proven wrong on the existance of an identical myth, and you refuse to accept it.
you've been proven wrong on the fact that hospitality or violations of host-guest agreements lead to destruction of whole groups in other literature, and you refuse to accept it.
you've been proven wrong on the existance of similar myths, considering that gen 19 is setup like a hospitality myth, and you refuse to accept it.
you've been proven wrong on the basis that is the mainstream academic opinion, and has been for the last 2000 years, as indicated in the talmud, midrashim, and even the secular work of josephus. and you refuse to accept it.
and more over, you proved that you have absolutely NO knowlegde of what you're talking about by continually misrepresenting the timeframe of the story's authorship (and therefor it's societal context that you keep harping on about). you've also proven you don't even know what what the torah is, let alone that the talmud, midrashim, and josephus's antiquities are not in the bible. in fact, josephus isn't even a religious work. simply put, you're completely ignorant of the topic.
now, i'm sorry i called you a name. but you honestly must have been living in a cave for your entire life to not know what the torah is. i'm not arrogant, i just know what i'm talking about. and you do not.
I can and will take the same stance regarding Jewish redactions of the Torah or Talmud as I take with christians.
be my guest, unless that stance is "they don't exist." the talmud is CLEARLY literary interpretation of the torah. it's basically a record of people sitting around talking about it, like we are here. sometimes, it's even as heated. quoting the talmud is not the ultimate authority of anything, it's one rabbi's opinions, followed by another. and they almost never agree. and the midrashim are about the same. so take any attitude you want about it, it's the issue.
it does however show that that reading of the story is atleast 1800 years old, and probably much older. and that's all i had to show.
There is no evidence for the story of Sodom being "about hospitality" in any degree.
please.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-24-2005 07:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by contracycle, posted 03-24-2005 4:49 AM contracycle has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1375 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 211 of 213 (193967)
03-24-2005 7:14 AM


someone please put an end to this.
mods, i think it's a good time to shut this thread down. it hasn't been on topic for most of it's 14 pages. further more, the debate between contracycle and i becoming just plain abusive, of which i am not innocent myself.
either that or someone else step in, cause this is getting stupid.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024