What Was the "Sin" of Sodom?

What is a sodomite?

That depends on what "IS" is (or isn't).

If it "is" in one verse but "isn't" in another then it "is" not at all.

HankD

[ May 16, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Dear johnv,

You have responded...

Its not really apples and oranges John, its more like McIntosh and Delicious apples.

It is a translation (LXX) produced by the God-authorized OT keepers of the Word of God, they were the Hebrews not the Chinese. They had a fluent and intimate knowledge of Hebrew.

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

LXX translation (now that you mention it):

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Here is the Septuagint Greek cross-over word which the 70 chose to translate the Hebrew word "yada", of Genesis 19:5

"sugginomai" :

Liddell Scott Lexicon 37286 Sugginomai "to have sexual intercourse".

Then Lot replies:
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly .
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:

To claim that the word "yada" in the context here means to "ascertain by seeing" falls apart completely because Lot says "do not so wickedly" and offers them his daughters whom the sodomites had certainly already "ascertained by seeing" long before his guests showed up. Lot (righteous but deluded) was offering them something more than "ascertaining by seeing". That he brings up the fact of their virginity using "yada iysh" (known a male) makes that perfectly clear.

Again the context of Genesis 19 clearly reveals the sodomites intent. There is no question John.

Again, believe (but beware) what you will.

Irrelevant? The God-breathed New Testament commentary of the Genesis account of Sodom and Gommorah irrelevant?!

Jude 1
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


HankD

[ May 16, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hi SheEagle. Thank you for your reply. You said; I will give you an A+ for using the well worn KJV and Strong's, however. Now, shall we debate over whose KVJ is the most worn, yours or mine?

Thank you for the A+ SheEagle! I appreciate it. I give you an A++ . No need to debate whose Bible is more worn. I'm very joyful to hear that you also have a well used Bible. That means you are USING IT (which is always good).

You said; My dear, latterrain, it is quite obvious from your last post comments that you didn't really read what I posted as you made your reponse,.. I apologize if I misunderstood your comments. I tried to respond to your thoughts as I read them.

You said; And I will not accept some convoluted theory about Sodom and Gomorrah which excuses homosexual behavior...

I certainly don't expect anyone to accept anything that I say. I've just put some ideas on the table, using the Bible to support my ideas, in search for truth. Also, I'm not suggesting that we should "excuse" anything. I've simply asked you and HankD (or any others) a few questions pertaining to the subject of the thread. Though you did not answer my questions, you did say; "You will believe what you believe." I assumed this to mean that you won't answer my questions.

The typical image of Sodom is that they were a wild band of roving predators of pure homosexual bent. I have suggested that Sodom could NOT have been a nation of homosexuals to the extent ascribed to them by so many. Could it be that THIS is the reason "homosexuality" is not listed among the sins of Sodom in Ezek. 16? Isn't it more wise to just accept what the Bible actually SAYS about the sins of Sodom? Why do so many always "pick on" homosexuals yet give the proud & arrogant a pass?

Last thought; in Mark 16: 15 we are told to go into the world and preach to EVERY CREATURE. Every creature means EVERYONE; including homosexuals as equally as it includes any other. With the attitudes that so many Christians have against homosexuals, how is it possible for these Christians to preach the Gospel of LOVE, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness, and Self-Conrol to them? Thanks! latterrain77

 

Jude 1
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The NT commentary found in Jude says that they were "giving themselves over to fornication" and "going after strange flesh".

"Porneia" has a much wider scope than the modern English word, the word in Jude is "ekporneuo".
This word has its root as "porneia". "ek-porneuo" means they went "all out" in the pursuit of "porneia":

4202 porneia {por-ni'-ah}
• 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18.

Abraham asked God to spare Sodom if he could find 10 righteous in the city. God agreed. The city was destroyed, so there were not 10 righteous in the city.

Genesis 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Also, when the crowd came before Lot the Scripture states:

Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

So it was grievous and wide spread "exporneuo" and the going after of strange flesh.
Pray tell how a man can "know-yada" another man and not violate Leviticus 18:22?
History has verified that the Canaanite people and the regions round about them were given over to several perversions, homosexuality being just one of these sins (in that you are correct). However, most of the Canaanite perversions were practiced by everyone, young and old in a society that was bi-sexual as well as perverted.

The LXX translators of 2000 years ago understood full well the meaning of Genesis 19:5 (see one of my previous posts). Therefore we are not "picking" on homosexuals per se.

You have made this claim before, and might I remind you that every sin in the book including pride and arrogance has had its come-uppance here on the BB and I reject your premise that homosexuals are being "picked on".

This thread asks a question, we have answered and no one is picking on homosexuals per se, it just happens to be their turn to get roasted (with fire and brimstone) with the answer that some/many/most of the citizens of pre-fire-brimstone Sodom and Gommorah were homosexual and sexually perverted which led to their destrucution.

As to Ezekiel 16: So the sexual sins are not mentioned here, so? The NT inspired Sodom and Gomorrha commentaries of Jude do mention them.
As far as I can see there is no point to your Ezekiel 16 point.

Where has anyone on the BB denied the Gospel to homosexuals?

LOVE, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness, and Self-Conrol are the fruit of the Spirit.

The Gospel is found in
1 Corinthians 15:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

"Christ died for our sins"
Homosexuals must acknowledge their lifestyle as sin. Granted some will not be totally delivered from temptation. A struggle with temptation does not justify or excuse sin or somehow make it OK.

The biggest problem here on the BB is that some say homosexuality is not a sin.
People react emotionally not only to the sin itself but that some make God out to be a liar by denying that homosexual practices are sin.

HankD

[ May 16, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

AMEN
I guess on this one Hank , we agree!
chet

 

So now you are saying that the Sodomites were heterosexual, homosexual and every other sexual? Fair enough! Did the Sodomite population grow as a result of heterosexuality or homosexuality?

The Jude 1 text that you quoted says; " Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, (bold is mine). You are singling out Sodom for behavior which this verse says was also practiced elsewhere (heterosexuality, and not necessarily homosexuality). Every sexuality that you mentioned in your post has been practiced in every nation throughout time.

You said; As to Ezekiel 16: So the sexual sins are not mentioned here, so? The NT inspired Sodom and Gomorrha commentaries of Jude do mention them. As far as I can see there is no point to your Ezekiel 16 point.

Ezek. 16 is extremely relevant. It speaks DIRECTLY to the question of this thread and spells out Sodom's issues specifically from GOD Himself. Homosexuality was NOT on that list. If you want to add the word homosexuality to the Eze. 16 list of sins when GOD specifically EXCLUDED it, then you are on your own. I recommend against it though. As for the the Jude 1 text, it is not exclusive to Sodom (see above) nor is it exclusive to homosexuality (if it even refers to homosexuality at all).

You said; Where has anyone on the BB denied the Gospel to homosexuals? . I didn't say that. I said, and I quote: " With the attitudes that so many Christians have against homosexuals, how is it possible for these Christians to preach the Gospel of LOVE, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and Self-Control to them?" You haven't answered that question.

LOVE, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and Self-Control are the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5: 22-23). None of these fruits are practiced when Christians call homosexuals names and treat them with scorn (Rom. 12: 10, Rom. 13: 8). Do we witness with contempt in our hearts or with love and compassion? (1 Cor. 4: 21).

You said; People react emotionally not only to the sin itself but that some make God out to be a liar by denying that homosexual practices are sin.

Emotional reactions are better invested in something positive rather than disdain. All sexuality outside of marriage is sin (Heb. 13: 4). We are called to witness the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE (Mark 16: 15). You can't witness the Gospel to "every creature" while simultaneously feeling contempt in your heart for them, or while calling that creature disparaging names. We should treat all men with honor and dignity. The fruit of the spirit should be fully evident in our Christian witness - perhaps even more so with those that challenge us. Though we are not perfect, we can certainly do a lot better than clinging to hostilities that are both unBiblical and unkind. Thanks. latterrain77

[ May 16, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Hi pastor Chet. Among other things, a pastor MUST be "given to hospitality" and "apt to teach" (1 Tim. 3). Would you confirm that as a pastor you extend hospitality to all; including homosexuals? Also, would you confirm that you are eager to teach everyone the Bible, including homosexuals? If your answer to the above is no, then would you please tell us why? And, if the answer to the above is Yes, then please elaborate? Thanks! latterrain77

[ May 16, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Gen 13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

I get the idea that these guys were committing lots of sins and lots of varieties, too.

Gen 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons.

Why did he want the persons instead of the loot?

Gen 18:20...Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Men wanting to have sexual contact with other men was certainly pervasive in Sodom.

Exek 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. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

latterrain77 You said, "Homosexuality was NOT on that list. If you want to add the word homosexuality to the Eze. 16 list of sins when GOD specifically EXCLUDED it, then you are on your own."

You keep leaving verse 50 off your comments. Homosexuality fits very well into the abomination category (see Genesis for details of their sin.). Homosexuality is included in abominations (among other things) so you can't say that God "specifically EXCLUDED" it from Exek 16:49-50. I am not on my own, I am with a great many other people (which proves nothing but is nontheless a fact).

If I can't use abomination as inclusive because it is not the word homosexuality specifically then you can't use the word "sin" (to prove that the sin of Sodom isn't listed in Exek) because it is not the word iniquity specifically.

 

I think gang-raping travelers is abominable. Just wanted to clear that up.

Haruo

 

Dear latterrain,


I have said my piece (for now).

Dear Pastor Chet: That is a good thing that we agree.

HankD

 

Jude tells us very clearly what happened.

Jude vs 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, GIVING themselves OVER to Fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengence of eternal fire.

They GAVE themselves OVER. Sure they had daughters and families, yet they gave themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh.

Strange is Strongs no 2087 heteros - Other or different.

So what is other or different flesh?

Considering that Male and female relations are the standard relations, then different relations are either Homosexual or Beastiality.

 

Hi Artimeus. Thank you for the comments. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. You said; I get the idea that these guys were committing lots of sins and lots of varieties, too.

I agree. Pride and arrogance are VERY sinful and were the cause of the fall (Gen. 3).

You said; Why did he want the persons instead of the loot?

Since he was king (Gen. 14: 21), he wanted to repatriate his people who were held as "hostages" resulting from the war at the time (Gen. 14).

You said; Men wanting to have sexual contact with other men was certainly pervasive in Sodom. Maybe, but I don't read that from the Gen. 19: 4 text at all. If that were so, then it would mean that EVERY man in the nation of Sodom (thousands) was seeking to have collective sexual relations with two Angels at the same time: an IMPOSSIBLE and preposterous idea! In fact, even if this were so (and I do not believe it is) it would NOT be "homosexuality" if the two visitors were Angels and not human (Gen. 19: 1). Homosexualty can only occur between two human beings of the same sex, not with angels (though some believe these were "human messengers" rather "angelic beings").

Furthermore, the word "to know" in this context is the Hebrew word "yada" which means to "ascertain by seeing" and does not necessarily denote sexual connotation. It does have everything to do with the militaristic environment in place at the time (see my second post on this thread).

You said; You keep leaving verse 50 off your comments. Homosexuality fits very well into the abomination category (see Genesis for details of their sin.)...

Homosexuality was NOT recorded as an abomination until many years after the Genesis account under Levitical law (Lev. 20: 13). Accordingly, even if there was some homosexuality in Sodom (and there was) it could not have fallen under the Leviticus law which alone defines such relations as "abomination." You can't be guilty of violating a law that does not exist (Rom. 4:15, 1 John 3: 4).

Furthermore, there was PLENTY of heterosexuality going on with the Sodomites. The Sodomites had daughters which could ONLY have occurred through heterosexual union (Eze. 16: 49). The nation was populated which itself could only occur through heterosexual union. None of this is to say that homosexuality did not exist in Sodom (it has existed in every nation throughout time). Thank you again Artimeus for your thoughts! latterrain77

[ May 17, 2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

latterrain77:
God said this about the men of Sodom:
They were wicked sinners exceedingly
They commtted abominations
Their sin was grievous
They gave themselves over to fornication
They went after strange flesh
(So much so that they "are set forth for an example")
There weren't 10 righteous people among them.

And you want me to believe that their king was benevolent and wanted to "repatriate his people".

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

I said: Men wanting to have sexual contact with other men was certainly pervasive in Sodom.

And you said: "Maybe",

MAYBE! I don't know the exact number but how in the world can you possibly say that this is anything other than all of them.

It is not an "IMPOSSIBLE and preposterous idea" that a large, wicked, evil mob would storm a house to get their way, anymore than lynch mobs of time past would surround a house and lynch someone even though only a few would do the actual lynching.

It makes no difference what these two visitors actually were (angels or men), the men of Sodom thought they were men so their goal was still homosexuality.

You would also have me to believe that this same group of people demonstrating a mob mentality were merely interested is getting acquainted with the two visitors or perhaps to ascertain whether they were enemies or not. The angels had to strike them blind to keep them from doing what they were intent on doing and they STILL tried. They had no noble, patriotic, or reasonable motives for their actions, just a continuation of their abominable ways.

 

Hi Artimeus. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your taking the time to express them.

You said; And you want me to believe that their king was benevolent and wanted to "repatriate his people".

I don't believe the king was necessarily benevolent, but I do believe he was interested in repatriating the hostages. The military had fallen in the war (Gen. 14: 10) and survival would have been all that mattered at that point.

You said; Men wanting to have sexual contact with other men was certainly pervasive in Sodom. and then you said I don't know the exact number but how in the world can you possibly say that this is anything other than all of them.

You say that you "don't know the exact number" and then you immediately proceed to say that it is ALL of them: 100%. You can't have it both ways. To suggest that homosexuality was literally 100% of the national makeup is irrational. If that were so, there would have been little reason for the nation to be destroyed as they would have "died out" with that generation! (homosexuals can't have children).

Furthermore, the fact that a Sodomite population existed at all illustrates that heterosexuality was rampant in Sodom. This is inarguable. The "maybe" of my last post suggested that "maybe" homosexuality was considerable in Sodom (as it has been in any nation throughout history).

You said; You would also have me to believe that this same group of people demonstrating a mob mentality were merely interested is getting acquainted with the two visitors or perhaps to ascertain whether they were enemies or not.

Yes. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts. The Sodomites were nationalistic, even referring to LOT (a long time resident) as an "alien" (Gen. 19: 9). How much more then would they be suspicious of these visitors? (especially after just losing a war at such great cost).

Those who believe the Sodomite men wanted to have sexual relations with these visitors must also believe that they pursued LOT with the same vigor while he was living among them.

You said; It is not an "IMPOSSIBLE and preposterous idea" that a large, wicked, evil mob would storm a house to get their way, anymore than lynch mobs of time past would surround a house and lynch someone even though only a few would do the actual lynching.

I don't agree. It is a far-fetched idea to think that THOUSANDS of men; literally an entire nation of men (Gen. 19: 4) were trying to have sexual relations with TWO angels (yet a separate impossible idea). The Sodomites may have come with a "lynch mob" mentality. However, lynch mobs are NOT interested in sex but violence. Gen. 19: 4-5 shows plainly that the men acted collectively (v5 "they" refers to ALL of the men of v4). So, your suggestion that only a "few" of the Sodomite men engaged in the act (while the others watched?) is not possible. Even if that idea WERE so (and it's not) then it would only mean that a few of the men were homosexual, not the collective whole nation.

You said; The angels had to strike them blind to keep them from doing what they were intent on doing and they STILL tried.

The fact that they "still" tried after being blinded is powerful evidence that it was militaristic survival rather than sex that was on the Sodomite mind. A person suddenly blinded would still fight if they felt physically threatened in a war like environment (like a wounded soldier will still fight). The EXACT opposite would be the case in matters sexual - OBVIOUSLY! In addition, the Genesis text shows that the Sodomite men were of an angry demeanor, not a giddy or amorous one. This further suggests a militaristic stance rather than a sexual one.

You said; They had no noble, patriotic, or reasonable motives for their actions, just a continuation of their abominable ways

I don't disagree entirely. The king sought a return of the hostages for national survival interests; not necessarily noble or patriotic ones. Recall that this nation had just endured a very vicious war (Gen. 14). They suffered much loss and the military literally "fell" according to the Gen. 14 text. This king was likely more focused on the continuation of the Nation rather than pure patriotism. I agree with you that the Sodomites would have pursued their abominable ways (which was Pride and arrogance). Had they turned from their pride and arrogance, perhaps GOD would not have destroyed them (Gen. 19: 24). It is PRIDE and haughtiness that goes before a fall - sexuality has little to do with it (Prov. 16: 18). By contrast, the Ninevites (another entirely evil nation) were NOT destroyed because they repented (Jonah 1: 2, Jonah 3: 5-10).

In closing; the fact is that Sodom was a populated nation. This population could ONLY have resulted from heterosexual union. It is silly to think otherwise. Please acknowledge and agree that the population of Sodom; men and women, resulted from HETEROSEXUAL union. If you don't think the population resulted from heterosexual union, then please tell me how homosexual union could have created that population. Thanks! latterrain77

[ May 18, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

God said they were proud, arrogant, haughty, evil, wicked, fornicating with strange flesh, grievous sinners exceedingly.
You said they were a proud, arrogant, haughty, heterosexual, militaristic nation struggling to survive.

Quite a different picture isn't it. Of couse their was all kinds of fornicating going on, men, women, it didn't matter to these guys, they would fit right in with one of our modern gay pride parades. that is how they got to be "an example".

Sure I can. I don't know the exact number of fathers in my small hometown but 100% of them are men. The men of Sodom were sexually perverted. I didn't say they were "exclusively" homosexual. The sexual license evident in Sodom was so pervasive that even Lot's daughters thought it was acceptable to have sex with their own father.

BTW (completely off topic), have you ever thought about how was it even physically possible for Lot to be so drunk that he was "out of it" and supposedly didn't know what he was doing, and still be "able" to have sex with his daughters?

 

God's Word is true from cover to cover. Be it far from me to put more importance on one verse than the other. He spoke it, inspired it written, and I believe it - all of it.

Hair splitting barred, cheers to those of you who have taken time to detail.
PJ

[ May 19, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: PJ ]

 

Hi Artimeus. Thank you for the follow up. I appreciate your thoughts.

You said; Quite a different picture isn't it.

I don't think so. The Sodomite nation was populated and this could only have occurred through heterosexual union. This is inarguable. Of course there were also homosexuals among them, as there are in every nation. There is no doubt that Sodom was a Militaristic nation (Gen. 14). There is no doubt that the Sodomites were nationalistic (Gen. 19: 9). It is PRIDE and ARROGANCE that precede a fall (Prov. 16: 18).

You said; Of couse their was all kinds of fornicating going on, men, women, it didn't matter to these guys,

If the men of Sodom were having sexual relations with women (and they were) then by definition that means they were NOT homosexual.

You said; they would fit right in with one of our modern gay pride parades. that is how they got to be "an example".

Gay means "exclusively homosexual." The "gay pride parade" is a celebration of that. Sodom was a populated nation as a result of heterosexual union. Accordingly, the "gay pride parade" is not a reasonable association for Sodom. However, if by that association you mean "pride" rather than "gay" then I don't totally disagree.

You are correct that Sodom has come to be "an example." However, I have argued that it is an incorrect example resulting from years of wrong teachings and doctrines that are heavily homo-centric, and lacking solid Biblical support.

You said; I didn't say they were "exclusively" homosexual.

I thought you did when you said; " I don't know the exact number but how in the world can you possibly say that this is anything other than all of them." (bold is mine).

You said; have you ever thought about how was it even physically possible for Lot to be so drunk that he was "out of it" and supposedly didn't know what he was doing,

No, I can't say that I have thought about this. However, I do believe that people who consume alcoholic beverages are always at great risk of exposing themselves and others to harm and confusion. The situation with Lot and his daughters was exceedingly sinful and alcoholic beverages played a role. Thanks Artimeus! latterrain77

 

Latterrain is quite set in his mind about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

No amount of discussion seems able to change that.

I once asked about his/her double standard; mainly, that being that he could without question label the sins listed in Ezekiel as the sins committed in Genesis, while not calling the abomination listed in the next verse abomination committed in Genesis. You see, his logic is that since the law didn't exist yet, the abomination is not abomination. But since the law didn't exist yet, then obviously the sins were not sins, even though he/she admits they were sins.

There are many, many things God listed for us in the Bible as abomination. One of those things is man lying with man as he would a woman.

In my mind: 'nuff said.

 

Many have made a point to bring up the verse from Jude which reads:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Note two things. First, it mentions fornication (both heterosexual and homosexual) and strange flesh (beastiality), not homosexuality. Homosexuality was not listed separately.

Second, it doesn't say that Soddom and Gomorrha were destroyed for fornication. Notice, it says odom, Gomorrha, and "cities like them". There were, if momory serves, five cities in the region that were guilty of the sin of all sorts of fornication, yet only S & G were destroyed. Only S & G were accused of sinful pride and arrogance.

The verse in Jude says that THOSE WHO PRACTICE FORNICATION AND BEASTIALITY will suffer vengeance like S & G. It DOES NOT say that fornication & beastiality were the causes of their destruction.

I don't buy it.
In other words, you choose not to accept what was clearly written, because it doesn't support your view...

Considering that Male and female relations are the standard relations, then different relations are either Homosexual or Beastiality.
No, MARRIED male and female relations are the biblical standard. HETEROSEXUAL relations outside of marriage is also fornication. We seem to forget that.


The God-breathed New Testament commentary of the Genesis account of Sodom and Gommorah irrelevant?!
No, I said the Greek word used is irrelevant to the words used in the Hebrew OT. in any event, the greek word "pornia" means fornication. It does not infer homosexuality. It simply means sex outside of marriage.

It is a translation (LXX) produced by the God-authorized OT keepers of the Word of God
It is a translation. A translation is not the word of God. It is a TRANSLATION of the word of God. Translations are not in any way divinely inspired.

What these two are doing here are posing the very same arguments found all over the internet by those who seek to excuse their sins of homosexuality before righteous Almighty God.
I take incredible offense to that. First of all, I don't excuse the sin of homosexuality. I don't appreciate you inferring that I do. Second, I don't know about other such internet arguements, I know only what the Bible says. And the Bible is clear that S & G were not destroyed because of homosexuality.

[ May 19, 2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

In 1Kgs.14[24] 1Kgs.15[12] 1Kgs.22[46] 2Kgs.23[7] sodomite referrs to the following:


The Hebrew word translated "sodomite" is qadesh, which is a temple prostitute whose job it is to engage in sexual acts for the purpose of idolatry (usually, but not always, a young male). It is not "any male who has sex with any male". It's specific to perversions of idolatry.

I couldn't find Ezra.7[36].