Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

It's been well established, from the very mouth of the authors themselves, that the NIV bible is not an accurate translation of the source material. I think you would do better to find a more accurate source.

are you reading this thread at all? here's one from rrhain: http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 -->EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

quote:

---

That's the story of Baucis and Philemon. Zeus and Apollo (though sometimes it's Zeus and Hermes) visit Phrygia and are treated poorly except for this one couple who take them in and share their meager provisions. Strangely, they stretch to feed them all, the food is excellent, the wine never stops flowing, and the couple eventually realize just who it is they are dining with.
Frightened, they beg mercy and the gods laugh saying that they were the only ones who were good to them. They can have anything they wish. Their only wish is that when they die, they die together. So the two gods establish a temple for them to be the priest and priestess of and, when they grew old and their time came, they were turned into trees: He an oak and she a linden tree, their branches intertwined forever.

---

the only difference, as he points out, is that the entire society is not punished. i'm not arguing that genocide is a common theme in the stories. it's not. but genocide does seem to be a common theme in the bible.you're starting to sound like a fundi. just because i haven't the time to go to library and crack the big old stith-thompson doesn't mean there isn't any story like sodom. but it's spring break, and i have to catch up on a big project on campus, so maybe i will.

any of these translations work better for you? they all seem to be saying the same thing.Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Biblei am not an apologist for paul. he really is a bastard.

You know, the destiable things were layed out before them. The fact you want to read homosexual behavior in someplace where it is not stated is just showing your obsession with homosexuality.You are trying to twist the words into things that are not stated.

quote:

---

the only difference, as he points out, is that the entire society is not punished. i'm not arguing that genocide is a common theme in the stories. it's not. but genocide does seem to be a common theme in the bible.

---

And thats exactly the difference I was pointing out - it makes no sense to see Sodom as having suffered such a collective fate becuase hospitality is a personal, not collectove, virtue.

quote:

---

you're starting to sound like a fundi. just because i haven't the time to go to library and crack the big old stith-thompson doesn't mean there isn't any story like sodom. but it's spring break, and i have to catch up on a big project on campus, so maybe i will.

---

Nonsense - round these parts you can't even recommend a book without being both willing and able to relentlessly defend the authors every statement.

yes, and i reiterate, it DOES make sense in light of the rest of the book of genesis. a good portion of genesis is political propaganda. the characters in often eponymous ancestors of people surrounding the hebrews. so writing things like ishmael's origins is in effect calling every arab a bastard child.in fact, here's a good example of this practice, from genesis 19. remember the passage where lot's daughters have sex with him?

quote:

---

Gen 19:37-38

​

And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same [is] the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same [is] the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

---

the first is just outright namecalling. but the second is actually a racial joke. it's making a play on the name of traditional progenitor of the ammonites. it's a pun. genesis is full of them. in hebrew, his name sounds like "ben ammi" or "son of my father." cue the incest joke, oh look there it is a few verses back.tell me, do you honestly think genesis is NOT condemning two whole groups of people in this verse?there are also other instances of entire peoples being destroyed. the flood is a rather good example. in that light, this is not totally out of place in the region, either, considering the flood story was borrowed from another culture.and as i said before, and will again, reading this story with an idividualist mindset is anachronistic. you could argue that joseph is a hero. or jacob. or abraham. they all outwit people. but lot doesn't seem the hero type, does he? you have to remember these are separate sources, written by different people at different times.and as well, if you'd read the story, it makes it painfully clear that lot is the only virtuous man in the city. it's not that the whole group is being punished as a collective for one man's inhospitality. exactly. i recommended the book, stith-thompson's "motif-index of folk literature." but he doesn't really make a lot of statements. it is, afterall, an index. not an essay. it lists stories, and how to find them.

quote:

---

tell me, do you honestly think genesis is NOT condemning two whole groups of people in this verse?

---

Eh? Of course it is but who cares?

quote:

---

and as i said before, and will again, reading this story with an idividualist mindset is anachronistic.

---

Youre wrong - reading the story with a corporate mindset is mistaken. It should be quite clear that the region displays the Heroic cultural complex in all its glory.

quote:

---

and as well, if you'd read the story, it makes it painfully clear that lot is the only virtuous man in the city. it's not that the whole group is being punished as a collective for one man's inhospitality

---

Thats exactly my point. Thats why the answer "lack of hospitality" cannot be correct; it does not jibe with the local metaphors at all.

quote:

---

exactly. i recommended the book, stith-thompson's "motif-index of folk literature." but he doesn't really make a lot of statements. it is, afterall, an index. not an essay. it lists stories, and how to find them.

---

Fine - then I suggest you have substantially overstated your case in claiming that there were many examples of whole groups being destroyed based on virtues like hospitality. Hospitally is a Heroic virtue in every context in which I have encountered it, and not a corporate virtue.

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

No, it's the opposite of that - you had to explain to me that it means sex and not lying down. "Self-explanitory" would mean it meant "lying down." I knew what that euphamism means, yes. I don't understand how I'm supposed to know it's a euphamism and not literal. It's much more reasonable than your interpretation. If the men of Sodom were gay, and Lot knew that, why offer his daughters? They're gay! It doesn't make any sense.The men of Sodom want to interrogate Lot's visitors; he believes this is a sin and so he offers to allow them to rape his daughters. The only reason he would do this is if he knew the men were not gay, because why would gay men want to rape women; thus, we know that the men of Sodom were not gay. Being gay is normal. Just like having red hair or black skin is normal. Clearly not, not any more than having red hair or black skin are "diseases." There's nothing pathological about homosexuality. My point exactly. Since we know that some people are born homosexual, then we know that scripture does not condemn them for being homosexual. It really is just that simple. I'm not worried about it. I simply didn't want the discussion to proceed from inaccurate assumptions. Surely you can respect a desire to avoid mistaken impressions? Apparently not.

Yeah. Maybe you've read it? It's called "The Bible."

so how is the punishment of an entire city a foriegn concept? why is it out of place? when, and which religion? the bible is a collection of literature from multiple judaic and judaic-influenced sects, and contains writings that might span as much as 2000 years.how do you know the lot story derived from a heroic culture? you don't, at all, especially considering the FACT that many stories in genesis come from other cultures, but have a judaic spin. and in this case, the judaic spin might the destruction of the whole city, since condemning whole groups of people is not exactly uncommon in the torah. do tell then, what is it about? homosexuality?as rrhain posted,

quote:

---

Ezekiel 16:49: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

---

ezekiel seems to think hospitality was an issue. and the leviticus commandment is phrased exactly like the events in genesis 19: a stranger in the land. possibly. look up the book and tell me. have you looked up the book yet? you might be suprised.

don't trust bible dictionaries. EVER. they are all religiously biased. i mean, read it closely. does it really mean "a citizen of sodom?" no, i doubt it.you're right in one regard though. paul did not make up the word. it actually has a rather specific meaning. and it's not temple prostitute, either. that would be pornoi.but the word in every other context seems to indicate some act of force or wrong above passive moral standards.

quote:

---

Now, if the placing of arsenokoites in the TLG texts in between the sexual sins and social sins is not an accident, we would know that arsenokoites somehow related to sexual injustice. This is interpretation is compatible with all the lists quoted. For example, the placement of arsenokoites just before slave trader is particularly appropriate, since homosexual slaves were normative in classical societies. The interpretation of arsenokoitai in terms of homosexual subjugation and/or exploitation, rather than referring to all homosexual behaviour, seems appropriate from these contexts.

​

This translation for arsenokoites fits well within two other TLG texts, both of which are early uses of the word. The first is from the Apology of Aristides, chapters 9 and 13. It relates the myth of Zeus, and his relationship with the mortal boy Ganymede. In the story, we are told that the myth is evidence that Greek gods act with moixeia (adultery) and arsenokoites. Similarly, in Hippolytus' Refutatio chapter 5, we are told the story of the evil angel Naas, and how he committed adultery with Adam in the Garden, which is how arsenokoites came into the world. Hippolytus then compares this story with that of Zeus and Ganymede [Petersen, 284]. In both of these stories an aggressor forcibly takes advantage of a weaker individual.

---

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.htmlso it's connotation is something close to statutory rape. if i had to make a GUESS as to it's meaning from context, i would put my money on the typical ancient greek nambla-style relationships, and NOT standard homosexuality between two consenting and adult males.(just for clarification, i do not argue this point out of religious belief. i don't like paul or his advice either way.)

quote:

---

so how is the punishment of an entire city a foriegn concept? why is it out of place?

---

The REASON you give is unsustainable. Have you bothered reading my posts?

quote:

---

how do you know the lot story derived from a heroic culture? you don't, at all, especially considering the FACT that many stories in genesis come from other cultures, but have a judaic spin. and in this case, the judaic spin might the destruction of the whole city, since condemning whole groups of people is not exactly uncommon in the torah.

---

Because the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Hittite societies were all Heroic, and all contributed to the culture that became Judaism. Thats the default status of ancient middle eastern societies. The story of the destruction of Sodom has to be set in a Heroic context, and in this milieu dea that corporate inhospitality would merit such punishment does not fly.

quote:

---

do tell then, what is it about? homosexuality?

---

Shrug - if anything, its likely to be simple conquest. But, in order to account for why the event should have such prominence, I also favour theories that some sort of natural disaster wiped out these cities.

quote:

---

ezekiel seems to think hospitality was an issue.

---

No, Ezekial seems to think POVERTY is an issue - no mention is made of foreigners, outsiders or strangers in that bit.

quote:

---

possibly. look up the book and tell me.

---

Thank you I'm well enough familiar with the topic at hand. Seeing as you are making the claim, YOU look it up.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-09-2005 04:05 AM

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

Seeing as how I know that you love Paul, what do you make of Rom 1:21-27?

---

From the NIV? Discarded out of hand as a travesty of a translation. They proudly admit that they rewrote the text. Why should we trust anything they say?I've already had a long discussion about the meaning of "askemosune" in Greek. It means "of or relating to the vagina" or "shameful." It's only used twice in the Bible...the other time being Revelations 16:15 when it is translated as "shame."How does this become "homosexuality," then?

quote:

---

Now, I know that you do not think that the Bible...Paul specifically...is inspired or is any more worthy of consideration than a basic Marlo Thomas Free to be you and me video.

---

Where did I say that?Chapter and verse, please.You seem to have confused disgust with what most people think the Bible says with what it actually says.

quote:

---

We disagree because you think that normal and healthy are to be determined by humanity, whereas a believer would look to God to show us what normal and healthy really are.

---

Strawman. This isn't about god. This is about what "natural" means. Wmscott painted himself into a logical corner. He wanted to invoke "natural" by claiming that animals don't do this...only perverted humans do. But when he was shown that animals do, indeed, do this, he retreats and claims that humans shouldn't "behave like animals."Can't have it both ways. Either we look to nature for guidance in understanding what is "natural" and consider it when deciding our own system of morality or we abandon any concept of "natural" as a guide because we think that humanity is completely and utterly independent of the rest of the universe.Could you please give me a definition of "animal" that does not include humans in it?

quote:

---

Sexual attraction is not the issue. I may find someone of either sex attractive to my desires, but how can I justify fullfilling my desires as the highest and noblest form of human good?

---

By comparing your desires to the highest and noblest form of good. If you are going to use the Bible as your guidance, it would be helpful if you could find any sort of indication about the subject at hand.Jesus never mentions homosexuality. The only times the Bible ever does is in reference to prostitution and ritualized sex.There's an old joke: The Bible contains over 300 regulations concerning heterosexual activity and only 4 (or 6, depending on translation) regarding homosexual activity. It isn't that god doesn't love gays.It's just that they require less supervision.

quote:

---

Could it be that indeed Paul is right and that humans sought completion through worshipping images...which led to deification of the human form and an idolatry which was definitely NOT the highest and noblest form of human good?

---

And what does that have to do with homosexuality? It is true that the male form was often studied in Greek sculpture, but so was the female form. I fail to see how a slide into body worship is something unique to homosexuality.

quote:

---

It is a slippery slope from "platonic to erotic."

---

And this is unique to homosexuality how? There are no "breast men"? No "ass women"?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!