Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19

-- and the rest of the town PUNISHED. please READ the posts i direct you to. i'm sorry, that's like arguing the batman comics a few years ago didn't count because batman used guns. it's still a comic book, and it's still a guy in a bat suit called "batman."in this case, it's still godly/angelic visitors who reward hospitality. what are you smoking, and can i have some? no duh. you're arguing this like it's somehow contrary to what i'm saying. it's not. you don't get it, do you? it's JUST A STORY. that's how it was written.have you even read genesis 18 and 19? god says if ten just people can be found in the city, the city would be saved. the angels find lot, his wife, and their two daughters. that means, according to the story, at most five righteous people died. and the implication is that there were no other righteous people.is the story even talking about corporate responsibility if everyone else, or damned near everyone else is sinful?please, please, please disconnect for just a moment from the idea that sodom may have been a real place. for this purpose it's not. it never was, and it never will be. what does the story mean? yes, yes, yes, i know all that. my point was simply that destruction of everyone for EVEN NO POINT AT ALL is not a foreign concept to these people. why do you not have a problem with a story talking about destroying the earth because it's noisy, but have one with a story where a city gest destroyed for a different reason? is the flood not about corporate responsibility for the noise?you're being ridiculous. and yet the world is still destroyed, AS A WHOLE, in a flood. what's your point again? and if it's punishing each sinner for his own sin, how is that NOT the case with the sodom myth, considering one man is saved in each? and this is DEMONSTRATABLY WRONG. and it HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN THIS THREAD. the story is identical to the greek myth.you have also, again, failed to provide an alternative reason, that has nothing to do with corporate responsibility. i don't think of it as a rationalization of conquest. i'm fairly certain the conquest of the sister cities took place long before the writing of this passage in genesis, and by people who were not from israel.i find it more likely a hebraic spin on local tradition regarding the fall of the two cities. i don't see anything rational about it, and nothing about conquest.but disregarding its relationship to reality -- what is the story talking about? "rationalization of conquest" is rather vague. who is it rationalizing it, hm? ok, now what was their evil? and show me where it says they were individually sentanced and punished? well of course. but what ezekiel said was essential that they did not help those in need of help. and besides, at best, ezekial is a presenting a later opinion on the tradition. as you can see, the other stuff he talks about is not mentioned in genesis 19, is it?does genesis 19 talk about idleness? pride? gluttony?what does it talk about?what is the reason genesis presents for the destruction of sodom? you're arguing that there was no idea of corporate responsibility. you brought that argument to the table, i didn't even talk about society operating as a collective. you're arguing a strawman.the story presents an entire city being destroyed, because it is full of some kind of sin. read that as corporate responsibility if you want. but that's what the story says.it has not only been shown in this thread that it is identical to other hospitality tales (some from heroic cultures!), but that genesis tends to generalize and stereotype entire cultures. therefor, neither is it at odds with anything, but you're arguing against WHAT THE STORY ITSELF SAYS.you can think something different happened in reality if you want. i'm pretty certain you'd be right. but the story, as it is written, depicts an ENTIRE city being destroyed for the sins of it's inhabitants, and this is not out of place in a book full of racial slurs, stereotypes, cultural puns, eponymous ancestry, and generalizations, whether or not they had any idea of corporations. that's nice. and i never proposed different. you came up with this whole idea of corporate responsibility, and how for some reason inhospitality could not be seen as atributed to a city.even though several people presented cases in which it is (ie: the greek myth), or where even single violations of guest-host relationships lead to destructions of great cities (like, you know, in the trojan war). now, you're not gonna tell me these stories aren't about that theme, since greece is clearly heroic, are you? that's nice, but traditionally, until the stay in egypt, the hebrews are a NOMADIC PEOPLE. everyone travelled. lot may have been a counterexample, but he didn't stay too long, did he?and it's kind of absurd to look at it through a blatantly modern republican stance, you know that? i don't think capitalism and social darwinism was always the norm. i never said it was a moral homily. in fact, the more i look at genesis, the more i FAIL to see any kind of morality. i don't think it's saying "be hospitable to guests." there's a verse in leviticus for that. ok, and what was the sin the story talks about?that was afterall, the question i answered and you took objection too. so, provide me with an alternative sin.

quote:

---

and the rest of the town PUNISHED. please READ the posts i direct you to.

---

PLEASE READ THE POSTS DIRECTED TO YOU

quote:

---

in this case, it's still godly/angelic visitors who reward hospitality. what are you smoking, and can i have some?

---

Imposing a conclusion from your world onto the ancient world is a silly method. You must deal with stories as they are told in the cultures that tell them - not interpreted by the standards of your culture.

quote:

---

no duh. you're arguing this like it's somehow contrary to what i'm saying. it's not. you don't get it, do you? it's JUST A STORY. that's how it was written.

---

No, it is directly contrary to what you are saying. I am beginning to wonder if YOU know what you are saying.[quot6e] is the story even talking about corporate responsibility if everyone else, or damned near everyone else is sinful?[/quote]No its not - thats exactly my argument. Thats why your proposition that this is a collective hospitality issue is mistaken.

quote:

---

please, please, please disconnect for just a moment from the idea that sodom may have been a real place. for this purpose it's not. it never was, and it never will be. what does the story mean?

---

Well I think thats a rather fatuous assumption. Furthermore, I have not proposed that I have any insight to what the story means specifically.

quote:

---

my point was simply that destruction of everyone for EVEN NO POINT AT ALL is not a foreign concept to these people. why do you not have a problem with a story talking about destroying the earth because it's noisy, but have one with a story where a city gest destroyed for a different reason? is the flood not about corporate responsibility for the noise?

---

No. I mean, WTF? First of all I seriously doubt that any such destruction was NOT accompanied by a mythical rationalisation: I'm, not aware of a "shit happens" attitude to cities being wiped out. I don't have a problem with a city being detroyed for "a different reason", but the reason you propose is wholly innapropriate to the context. It can and should be rejected.

quote:

---

you're being ridiculous.

---

... and the horse you rode in on.

quote:

---

and yet the world is still destroyed, AS A WHOLE, in a flood. what's your point again? and if it's punishing each sinner for his own sin, how is that NOT the case with the sodom myth, considering one man is saved in each?

---

Yes.. and the gods admitted that THEY WERE WRONG TO DO SO. Thats why it remains totally wrong to project this position to whoever wrote about Sodom. It would not have made sense to the people hearing the story - it would have painted god as immoral and unjust.

quote:

---

and this is DEMONSTRATABLY WRONG. and it HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN THIS THREAD. the story is identical to the greek myth.

---

Ah, weell then clearly the whole Nativity story is about hospitality, wight, what with the travails of Joseph and Mary and having to sleep in astable, right?The fact of the matter is a superficial resemblance does not in any way support your point. Furthermore, the allegedely "thousands" of similar stories remain conspicuous by their absence, don't they?I think you are persisting in this point merely out of pride.

quote:

---

i don't think of it as a rationalization of conquest. i'm fairly certain the conquest of the sister cities took place long before the writing of this passage in genesis, and by people who were not from israel.

​

i find it more likely a hebraic spin on local tradition regarding the fall of the two cities. i don't see anything rational about it, and nothing about conquest

---

Shrug. I don't have to provide a better theory to shoot holes in yours - you have to to pose a theory that resists attack. And I have already suggested an alternate explanation to explain the prominence of this story in the local tradiction - some archeologists argue that Sodom was hit by an earthquake that triggered a natural gas explosion and then slid the city into the dead sea; this matches with references to Sodom being surrounded by tar pits and the land burning after being smote by god.

quote:

---

ok, now what was their evil? and show me where it says they were individually sentanced and punished?

---

Who am I to say what their evil was? But what the bible does do is make it clear that Lot was the only innocent man, and that all the others were evil. Thats explicit in the story. You HAVE READ the story, haven't you?

quote:

---

what is the reason genesis presents for the destruction of sodom?

---

Hassling gods angels, and lack of morality, whatever is meant by that.

quote:

---

the story presents an entire city being destroyed, because it is full of some kind of sin. read that as corporate responsibility if you want. but that's what the story says.

---

Yes exactly SOME KIND OF SIN. Not lack of hospitality specifically.

quote:

---

it has not only been shown in this thread that it is identical to other hospitality tales (some from heroic cultures!), but that genesis tends to generalize and stereotype entire cultures. therefor, neither is it at odds with anything, but you're arguing against WHAT THE STORY ITSELF SAYS.

---

I am most cetainly NOT arguing against what the bible says, I am arguing against your erroneous and anachronistic interpretation of what the bible says. If you can show these identical hopitality tales, please do so - I have now aksed you for them on multiple occassions. The one tale you have provided in no way makes the case you want it to make - in fact it makes the opposite, because the characters involved did NOT suffer as they would have done if they been held collectively responsible. Your argument is in tatters.

quote:

---

even though several people presented cases in which it is (ie: the greek myth), or where even single violations of guest-host relationships lead to destructions of great cities (like, you know, in the trojan war). now, you're not gonna tell me these stories aren't about that theme, since greece is clearly heroic, are you?

---

Presented cases unsuccesfully. The Trojan war is also clearly not a case of an hospitality issue - it is overtly about the kidnapping of Helen. Its quite clear that this is the lesson the Greeks took from the story, seeing as they went on to name themselves Hellenes.

quote:

---

that's nice, but traditionally, until the stay in egypt, the hebrews are a NOMADIC PEOPLE. everyone travelled. lot may have been a counterexample, but he didn't stay too long, did he?

---

A fair point but it further undermines your argument - in Nomadic cultures, hospitality is once again an individual, not a corporate, responsibility.

quote:

---

and it's kind of absurd to look at it through a blatantly modern republican stance, you know that? i don't think capitalism and social darwinism was always the norm.

---

Umm yes, thats my whole point - your proposition is anachronistic and impossible in the temporal context. Nothing in MY argument depends in any way on capitalism or darwinism.

quote:

---

that was afterall, the question i answered and you took objection too. so, provide me with an alternative sin.

---

IMO the bible does not really make it clear what it is they are supposed to have done. One argument I have seen Christians advance is that the Sodomites hated god, and thus attacked his angels. I think its plausible that the "angels" were foreign aristos against whom the Sodomites had some grievance.

Hi,CC, just as an aside, Wikipedia says the term 'Hellenic' originated with 'Hellen', not 'Helen of Troy'Hellen - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
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.

---

actually. no.Exd 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. and then he punished the people of egypt as a whole for pharaoh's refusal to release the hebrews.funny. that sounds like causeing someone to sin and then punishing them for it. actually. come to think of it. he did the same thing to david.but then i can't find that reference right now.

hon. sorry. in nomadic tribes, everything is done for the good or destruction of the group. nothing is individual.

why can't we ever have a thread without discussing whether homosexuality is bad?

i HAVE and they are filled with complete ignorance of the subject matter, even after explanation to the contrary by myself and others. in fact, there is not a single point i haven't addressed and DISPROVEN. you think hospitality is a modern virtue? are you nuts?oh, i'm sorry, but capitalist economies and social darwinism aren't. that's right. how is it directly contrary to what i'm saying? i said that the sin of sodom was inhospitality. that was all that i said. you brought up the idea of them being all accountable together. OF COURSE the authors made it so that everyone was sinful, even individually. but is that not a generalization of the whole city? is that not an attack on the people who lived there? is not motivated by some sort of prejudice? NO. my position was that it was inhospitality PERIOD. nothing else. no idea of collective, except in the fact that it was supposedly the entire city outside of lot's door.but the authors of the text DID generalize the city. this is not something foriegn at all. genesis does it alot. ezekiel refers to "the sin of sodom" not "the individual sins of each and every one of it's inhabitants." when the nt authors wrote the gospels, they made the crowd persecuting jesus seem to be "the jews." these are racially motivated things. no, you've adequately demonstrated that you have no insight at all. you're just making an argument for the point of making an argument. you have repeatedly failed to note that even heroic cultures have hospitality myths, and that the NOMADIC hebrews operate under slightly different rules.you have failed to show a reason or proof that the story couldn't have anything to do with hospitality, other than you're assumption that hospitality has to be a collective thing, and the hebrews were not collective. both of which have been demonstrated to be wrong, and another identical tale has been shown from a heroic culture.that's WRONG on every count buddy. now put up an alternative sin, or stop bickering. you have been shown how it is not inappropriate to the context. and identical myth which is clearly about hospitality has been shown PAGES AGO. no, you ARE being ridiculous. if i wanted to say "fuck you" i would have. have you read genesis at all? if there's one book that paints god as immature, petty, amoral, and unjust, it's genesis. this would not exactly be breaking pattern. i mean, he confused the language of all mankind becuase he got jealous of the tower they were building. the almight god of the universe -- jealous!read the book sometime, it's fun stuff. no, because the innkeeper is not rewarded for his hospitality, nor were there any others who were inhospitable and punished because of it. it's not a superficial resemblance. it's THE SAME STORY. next you're gonna tell me that utnapishtim and noah are just a superficial resemblance?and i provided you with a reference to all of the similar stories. if i could find a copy of the darned book on the web, i'd have posted the list ages ago. but the book is six volumes, each quite thick, and it's JUST an index. you honestly think it doesn't have anything similar? one could say the same thing about you.i have been proven wrong on this board before. and i will again undoubtably. when i'm wrong, i accept it. but you have not presented any significant argument to my point.whereas, i have demonstrated:
* the hebrew authors generalized on the basis of ethnic origins, especially in genesis (and later refer to sodom as a single entity)
* hospitality does not have be collective
* hospitality myths are not absent from even heroic cultures
* this myth is identical to a greek hospitality myththat makes you wrong in about every way possible, you have failed to substantiate your case. so by the same token, evolution is invalid because the creationists poke holes in it? i'm sorry, but illogical and unprovable assumptions aren't exactly holes. these are people trying to rectify their religion with archaeology. there are no signs of an earthquake, or gas explosions. but there ARE signs of a battle, and a fire. that is, if this is even the same city.but don't forget, we're talking about a STORY here, remember? not what happened. there's no need to match the bible to reality, especially not in genesis. i could see people starting sweat in exodus, but these are ancient folklore, and nothing else. (address that point in the genesis metaphore thread though)and yes, it's very obvious that if this was a real city, the legend is partly an attempt to explain it. but it does have other goals, as does everything in genesis. genesis is very political, and here it is using this (possible) disaster to accuse the city or it's people of something.the original question was: what is it accusing them of? what is the evil it says they did? HOW are they trying to defame sodom? a person with a brain, i hope. do you think the people who read this story 2000 years ago sat around going "well, i don't know what they did, but god was pissed!" what happened to not being "aware of a 'shit happens' attitude to cities being wiped out?" what did they think it meant? well, his wife and two daughters seem to have been innocent too. but that's splitting hairs. (i know, not men...)so what was the evil of everyone else? what did they do to make the angels think the city was worth destroying? and if they're all evil, and the whole city is destroyed, how is it "corporate responsibility" if it's one sin, but not another? or any combination of sins? how does the nature of the sin change the story? hmm?(and asking you leading questions doesn't make me ignorant of the story. i'm demonstrating that your logic doesn't hold up.) that's great! now, hassling outsiders. what's another word for that? but it does portray a particular series of events that demonstrate what exactly? yes, you are. you're saying that corporate responsibility was not something the hebrews would write about, and reading what i said as corporate, somehow. and yet WHATEVER the sin is, they are all dealt with as a whole. the city is refered to later as being sinful AS A WHOLE. so yes, you are arguing against what the bible says. and i have repeatedly refered you to rrhain's post detailing the greek myth which is almost exactly the same story. i have also given you a citation of a reference that will contain a lot of similar stories. yeah, you know how it's different? in one story it's flood and in the other it rains fire. if one story is collective, so is the other, since they are both punished en masse. i'm not saying either is -- you are. and your argument is just plain illogical. don't know alot about greek mythology either, do we? the kidnapping of helen was a violation of host and guest relationships. as a result of ONE MAN'S sin, a whole city was destroyed, even if they are not all individually accountable for her kidnapping.also, hellenes come from a place called hellas, the greek mainland. (helladic = mainland, cycladic = islands) hellas, which is what greece calls itself even today, is named for hellen (a MALE name) not helen of troy. the hellen myth was, btw, discussed in rrhain's post which obviously still haven't read.just keep showing us that you have no idea what you're talking about. prove it.also, this particular nomadic culture seems to make cultural generalizations as i've pointed out. yes, actually, it does. "the poor deserve to be poor" is almost word for word the position of the social darwinists, which are dependent on capitalism. social darwinism does not work in socialized cultures. and only marginally works in feudal cultures as the corollary: only the king deserves to be rich.i'm sorry, but what you said is the exact stance of most of the young modern republicans i know. it's BLATANTLY anachronistic. well, not harassing the angels would have been a start, right? the angels did not present themselves as such. lot was not aware, nor were the citizens. this is the idea of a test. a possibility, yes. and so what did they do wrong to them?

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.

yes, very plausible. and i have shown why, with the context of the word in other literature. i beg to differ. the people who translate bibles are generally religiously biased. i have seen different translations say very different things. and it's usually not the position the scholars take either.translators ≠ scholars. keep this in mind. the world literally means man-couch. all else is interpretation. and it's not like the people in 1611 translated the greek differently. they just chose to render it in english differently.my suggestion is that it applies to a very SPECIFIC kind of homosexual relationship. i'm not sure they had modern homosexual relationships in ancient greece. anyone know for sure? several times i've re-translated biblical greek myself, by hand, with only a greek dictionary, and it say different stuff than the modern text. usually just in tone, though. paul's wording tends to sound more authoritative and harsh in greek, for instance.it's not overturning anything. why bother with new translations at all, if that's what you think? what about the context in the bible suggests it has to be homosexual? granted, the other extra-biblical contexts would seem to indicate homosexuality. the word's only used twice in the bible, and in lists of sins where rape is mysteriously absent.i'm not suggesting that's what paul MEANS neccessarily, but that he may be focusing on that aspect and not the genders. and words do change meaning. really? where? all it says is "man-couch" are we reading different pauls? mine says that women shouldn't teach, because women came from men. logic. yeah. actually, since there was almost certainly no homosexual marriage, homosexuality would fall under either adultery or fornication. and adultery is a type of fornications. so why mention more than one? the leviticus verse happens to be in the section of fornication prohibitions. two verses earlier is an adultery law. before that is incest. you have to wonder if it's related to there being no homosexual marriage, actually. i can't say one way or the other. actually, he says, paraphrased: "it's best to not get married and not have sex. but if you can't stop from having sex, you should get married so you don't go to hell."he obviously looks on sexuality as a bad thing, and marriage a neccessary evil. (like i said, the english calms paul down a bit) and if you don't believe me, look at the influence on the modern christian church. you can't tell me otherwise, i have very close friends who are messed up because of pauline sexual taboo. well, no, bisexuality. traditionally, older men and younger males had relationships at certain ages. it was just customary. i'm not sure if two adult males had relationships though. someone actually show me something on this. hi, welcome to the 20th century. we've known for a while now that sodom and gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. well, yes. but i'm not sure that's what paul means. there's another sort of relationship, described using the very same word, that was very common at the time. yes, but things DO change. and it's very possible that the nature of homosexual relationships has. for instance, for a period of time in this country, it was very unacceptable to even be gay. at that time, there were very few long-term homosexual relationships, just secretive bath-houses. now, there is a much higher percentage of monogamous homosexuals. the nature of the relationships have changed now that it's become more acceptable because more of the people who otherwise would have been closetted in hetero relationship are now free to be themselves. whereas before it was only the adventurous, rule-breaking swinger type that dared to come out at all.in greece at the time of paul, i'm suggesting that the common homosexual relationship was between older men and younger boys. and that this is what paul is refering to, not today's relationships. although i imagine he wouldn't approve of those either. but i have a very low opinion of paul. yes, but things do change.if paul says something about the "oldest profession" do you think it applies immediately to playboy models? how about strippers? both would resent being called prostitutes, you know. and yet these are extensions and adaptations of the same concept: sexuality for pay. and they certainly didn't have photography in paul's time.

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

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

Great. Superb. Are any of those people posting on the forum, or involved in this discussion, that we might draw on their superior understanding? An entire city of bisexuals? Where did they all come from? You're telling me there were no straight or gay people in the city at all? It defies sense. One is a homosexual if one is sexually orientated to members of the same sex. Just as one is heterosexual if one is sexually orientated to members of the opposite sex. It's entirely possible to be a celibate homosexual, just as one can be a celibate heterosexual.By your definition, it's impossible for a virgin to be heterosexual or homosexual; according to your usage the sexual orientation reported by people who have not had sex is irrelevant, is meaningless. In other words your terminology reflects a usage contradicted by the reported experience of sexual human beings. Such as? What is he? He's certainly not heterosexual, as he is not attracted to members of the opposite sex. This is a common myth. So what would it take to turn you gay? What would it take for you to find other men sexually attractive, if you don't now, already? Why is it that being heterosexual is a choice for everyone but you, for whom its no choice at all? Are we really supposed to believe that you're the only person born straight, and who didn't have to choose one or the other? Why should we believe such an unlikely story? Straightforward would be "thou shalt not have gay sex." That's not what it says. Gay men can't "lay down" the same as they would with a woman, for two reasons:1) They wouldn't "lay" with a woman in the first place;
2) Neither of them have a vagina. What about a gay marriage would be different?