What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Well since we don't have official census data I guess we'll never really be sure on the exact size of the population. Right? The point is that you keep referring to Sodom as if it were some large nation when in fact it was simply a City-State.

You talk about "Militaristic interrogation under the circumstances surrounding Sodom" being well known to have been "acquainted with torture, severe abuse, and even murder of the interrogated." Where exactly is such "militaristic interrogation" referenced in the Bible with respect to the post-wat Sodom where Lot resided? I mean we are discussing Scripture here and we want our interpretation of the events of Gen. 19:1-11 to line up with the teaching of the Bible.

Do you think that Lot, having been around Abram for so long, may have recognized these visitors as having come from God? Thus, he attempted to shelter them in his home. He knew the wickedness of the people of the city and he knew that it would not be safe for these visitors to spend the night in the city square.

Well now does that verse necessarily have to mean that these sons-in-law and Lot's daughters had already consummated their marriages by sexual union? Is there a possibility that since the daughters were still living at Lot's house that the "marriage" was still in the betrothal stage? You know, like Mary and Joseph were considered married but had not yet had marital sexual relations when she turned up with child by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a possibility, right? It was customary for the ancient Hebrews, like Abram and Lot (Gen. 14:13), to have a betrothal period where a daughter remained in her father's home, physically apart from the new husband, for up to a year.

Perhaps that is why the NIV translates the verse, "So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters (Gen. 19:14a, NIV)." Likewise, the NASB says, "Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, 'Up, (1) get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city' (Gen. 19:14a, NASB)." The NLT has it, "So Lot rushed out to tell his daughters' fiancés, 'Quick, get out of the city!' (Gen. 19:14a, NLT)." Finally, the CEV translates the verse, "Lot went to the men who were engaged to his daughters and said, 'Hurry and get out of here!' (Gen. 19:14a, CEV).

Again, if Lot recognized these visitors as being from God or even as spiritual beings he may have thought that it was the lesser evil to give his daughters up to the mob rather than allow the mob to defile the Lord's holy messengers. It is possible, right?

Furthermore, I believe that Peter considers Lot to have been "righteous" in the sense that (going back to Abram's intercession for Sodom in Genesis 18) he was the only man who was saved from the destruction of the city. However, from the point where Lot separated from Abram (Gen. 13) he steadily caved in to the fleshy desires of the world. This is first evidenced by his turning his eyes toward the plain of Jordan (Gen. 13:10), by his pitching his tent toward Sodom (Gen. 13:12-13), by his moving to and living inside Sodom (Gen. 19), by his lingering in Sodom when he knew it would be destroyed (Gen. 19:15-16), and ultimately by his allowing himself to become drunk and having sex with his own daughters, on two different occasions (Gen. 19:30-38).

I have nothing against the KJV. I use it all the time. However, it is but an English translation and the other translations are just as equally valid (and I do not want to start a KJV only debate in this thread. We have an entire forum for that purpose). Likewise, your comments above do not address the fact that the translators of the KJV frequently employed euphemisms when the text addresses things of a sexual nature.

I already addressed the issue of "the men of Sodom" and "all the people" in my first post to you. You glossed over it in each of your successive responses. There are four groups of people referenced in Gen. 19:4. They are as follows: (1) the men of the city; (2) the men of Sodom; (3) both old and young; (4) all the people from every quarter. I would say that the Bible places a lot of stress, with three separate references to the men, that the men of the city are the main focus of the verse. Perhaps the "all the people from every quarter" is included to let us know that everyone in the city surrounded Lot's house. You know even the women and children came out to see what all the hub-bub was about. However, it was certainly all the men who lusted after the visitors and desired to have homosexual sex with the new guys in town. It is possible, right?

I agree that we as Christians ought to be all about sharing the gospel with homosexuals. It is the only thing that will set them free from their sinful sexual preferences. However, I am not here to debate the manner in which some people use the term "Sodomite." I am debating whether or not the sin of homosexual acts took place in the city of Sodom. The Bible makes it clear that such homosexual acts took place in Sodom and those sinful homosexual acts played a part in bringing about the destruction of both Sodom and Gomorrah.

See my previous statements about this issue that you have beaten like a dead horse.

It would be nice if you acknowledged the rest of the statements that I made with respect to this issue. As a favor for Abram's sake God sent His messengers to Sodom to make sure that there were no righteous men in the city. God wanted Abram to understand that His judgment and punishment of the region was Holy, Righteous, and Just. As a result of God sending His messengers to Sodom the events of Gen. 19:1-11 took place. These events make it clear to us, the modern day readers, that the sin of homosexual activity was taking place in Sodom.

Come on now, surely you do not believe that the angels struck one or two people (or even 10-20), who were immediately adjacent to Lot's door, blind and as a result the entire population of the city did not continue to press the attack upon Lot and his guests. That is not a logical understanding of the text. Here again the translators of the KJV (and the other versions) are using language to get the point across that none of the population of the city was able to accost Lot or his visitors. The angels struck all the people outside Lot's house with blindness and suddenly having sex with the visitors was not quite so important anymore. They were distressed over the fact that they could no longer see and even those who continued to press the attack became weary of trying to find Lot's door.

The dead horse thing again... We are not debating whether or not an exclusively homosexual culture existed in Sodom. However, the men of Sodom all came to Lot's house, burning in their lust for the flesh, seeking to engage in homosexual activity with the visitors. That is the point of the text. That text makes no attempt to explain why all the citizens came in this massive mob to Lot's house. It does explain why the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young were present, and the answer in contained in Gen. 19:5. They, all the Sodomite men, came to Lot's house for the purpose of attempting to engage in the act of homosexual sex with the visitors.

The men of Sodom engaged in Homosexual activity before the two visitors to Lot's house arrived in the city. God knew this and He had judged them for this and all their other sins. The events of Gen. 19:1-11 occurred so that Lot could be a witness for his uncle Abram to the fact that not one righteous man remained in Sodom and that God's judgment and punishment was Holy, Righteous, and Just. The events of Gen. 19:1-11 were God's way of addressing Abram's concerns (Gen. 18:16-33). God provided an opportunity for any righteous man in Sodom to be identified and saved from the coming destruction. Not one man in Sodom, other than Lot, proved himself to have any moral character or ability to recognize temptation and sin and turn away from it. The only reason that the men of Sodom did not go through with the actual act of homosexual sex with the visitors is because they were restrained by supernatural intervention. The angels struck them blind to save not only themselves but also Lot. The men of Sodom had become so filled with their lusts and enraged by Lot's attempt to interfere that they proposed to do even worse things to Lot than they had planned for the visitors (Gen. 19:9).

I agree.

[ July 01, 2003, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Sorry. Double Post.

 

Pastor Bob,

That'll Preach!

 

Hello Latterrain77,

Sorry for the delay in posting a reply. I have been away on vacation. I would like to continue our discussion.

The NT references you are citing do not discount the possibility that these sons-in-law had not yet consummated their marriages with Lot’s daughters. On the other hand, Gen. 19:8 clearly (in typical KJV euphemistic fashion) says that Lot had two daughters that “have not known a man.” Here the Bible says that they were still virgins. The Bible does not say that Lot lied to the men outside his house about the virginity of his daughters (as it acknowledges that Abram was not completely honest in Gen. 12:10-20; and 20:1-18 when he said that Sarai was his sister instead of admitting that she was his wife). Furthermore, you still have not addressed the issue that I raised that opened the path to this topic of discussion. If the people of Sodom only wanted to question the visitors why did Lot offer his daughters to the men outside his house?

The NT passages that address Mary and Joseph purposely make it clear that Mary was found with child before she and Joseph had come together sexually as husband and wife. This is to demonstrate the miracle of Christ’s incarnation. However, how many biblical scholars would argue that in biblical times when two people were betrothed they were considered already married? A better biblical example would be that of Jacob and Rachel. Gen. 29:15-30 tells their story. Jacob loved Rachel from the very second that he first saw her. He agreed to work for Laban for seven years to earn her hand in marriage. At the end of those seven years of betrothal Jacob went to Laban and said, “Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go unto her” (Gen. 29:21, KJV). Here we see a man referring to a woman as his “wife” and they have not even had a wedding ceremony and certainly have not consummated the marriage. Likewise, according to the text Jacob worked for and lived with Laban during the betrothal period. This looks much like the situation back in Gen. 19 with Lot, his sons-in-law, and his daughters.

What is your biblical reference for this being the case in post-war Sodom of Gen. 19? Where does the Bible talk about the military preparedness of the City of Sodom in Lot’s day? Where does the Bible provide information about the fear factor or distrust of newcomers in the City of Sodom in Lot’s day. Lot was a stranger to them at one time and yet we are not told of his undergoing a “militaristic interrogation.” I think you are reading a great deal into the biblical text with the present line of argument.

The 2 Chron. 25:12 passage is dealing with Judah’s war against the Edomites and describes how the King of Judah and his army defeated the Edomite army and killed the prisoners of war. Additionally, the passage starts off by saying that king Amaziah of Judah “did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (1 Chron. 25:2, KJV). It does not reference any type of “militaristic interrogation” of strangers like you are seeking to support as having taken place in the City of Sodom in Lot’s day. This passage simply addresses how the Judeans dealt with a specific group of prisoners of war. The visitors to Lot’s house were not anyone’s prisoners of war.

The 2 Kings 24:16 passage simply shows that the King of Babylon took Jehoichin and many others captive and brought them back to Babylon. This text does not support the “militaristic interrogation” of strangers that you assert as having taken place in the City of Sodom during Lot’s days. The 1 Kings 8:50 passage is part of a prayer to God. The specific verse that you reference is Solomon asking God to forgive His people who sin against him, and for God to enable His people (Israel) with the ability to forgive (show mercy toward) those who have formerly been their captures. This passage does not support the kind of “militaristic interrogation” of strangers that you are attempting to assert as having taken place in the City of Sodom during Lot’s days.

Psalm 106 expresses joy for God’s forgiveness of Israel’s sins. The specific verse that you reference indicates that God caused Israel’s captures to have pity on them. Again, this passage does not support any type of “militaristic interrogation” of strangers as having taken place in the City of Sodom during Lot’s days.

Genesis 19:9 does not say that the Sodomites were generally “wary of strangers.” The verse indicates that the mob outside Lot’s house was enraged that Lot would not allow them to freely have their way with the visitors inside his house, and that they (the Sodomites) were offended that Lot (an outsider) was judging their attempt to “know” (KJV euphemism for have sex with) his visitors. Therefore, they threatened to do worse to Lot than what they intended to do to his guests. This verse in no way implies the kind of wariness or mistrust of strangers that you are seeking to assert. The Sodomites simply did not like the fact that Lot was attempting to deny them the fulfillment of their lustful desires. It is kind of like when I tell my kids that they cannot do something that appeals to their fallen sin natures and they get mad at me because I stand between them and their desire to gratify their fallen sin natures. Additionally, your attempt to use this verse to support your own interpretation that the passage that indicates that the Sodomites were generally “wary of strangers” commits the informal fallacy of Begging the Question. You are asking me to accept that your interpretation of the verse is correct in order to prove that your interpretation of the verse is correct. It is circular logic.

Likewise, I disagree with your take on Gen. 14:21. Here we see a defeated king of Sodom asking his rescuer, Abram, to return the Sodomite people into his charge; however, because he realizes that he owes Abram a debt that he can never fully repay the king tells him to keep the goods for himself.

To Be Continued

 

Post Continued:

I agree with you regarding the genderless state of angelic beings. Jesus confirms this in Matt. 22:23-33. However, in Gen. 19 the two spiritual beings, angels, appear as men. The Sodomites would have had no idea or concept that they were anything other than the men that they appeared to be. Therefore, the idea that the Sodomites desired to have sex with them is not out of the question. You are reading your knowledge of the genderless condition of spiritual beings gained from the NT teachings of Jesus in Matt. 22:30 back into the Genesis 19 passage. This is causing you to attribute a knowledge or understanding of spiritual beings to the Sodomites that the OT text does not give to them.

Again you are reading your NT knowledge back into the OT. The point is not whether or not the Sodomites did have/did not have or could have/could not have had sex with the visitors to Lot’s house. The point is that the men of Sodom saw what they believed to be two new men in town, they lusted after them, and went to Lot’s house with the intent of engaging in homosexual relations with them.

I did not say that Lot was the only one saved from Sodom’s destruction. I said that Lot was the only man to be saved from that destruction. There is a difference in the two statements. Anyone who can read knows that Lot’s wife and daughters were also conducted out of the city and thereby avoided the destruction. I was simply focusing on Lot as he is the subject of 2 Peter 2:7.

Like I said I do not wish to conduct the KJV only debate here. We have an entire forum dedicated for that purpose.

I am not trying to establish which translation of the original Greek and Hebrew texts is superior. The point is that in Gen. 19:5b the translators of the KJV used the phrase “bring them out unto us, that we may know them” as a euphemism for “bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Again, you are discounting or ignoring that fact that the text of Gen. 19:4 specifically mentions the “men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young.” The stress of the verse is clearly upon the fact that it was the men of the city who came to Lot’s house. Three times the verse points to the men of the city then it mentions the presence of all the people. I am not attempting to say that the phrase “all the people” does not include the fact that women would be in that number. I am saying that the threefold stress that the verse places upon the fact that “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young” indicates that it was these very Sodomite men who in Gen. 19:5b desired to “know” (KJV euphemism for have sex with) what they thought were two male visitors inside Lot’s house.

Nowhere in the Gen. 19 text are we told that anyone was armed for battle. Therefore, we should not read such into the text.

Then we have no debate on several points. (1) We agree that the sin homosexuality took place in Sodom. (2) Likewise, I agreed with you earlier that due to the fact that children were present in the city the Sodomite people had to have engaged in acts of heterosexual relations in order to procreate. (3) Additionally, I have never attempted to argue that the City of Sodom was a 100% exclusive homosexual community. However, I will say that if those men and women who procreated children together also engaged in sexual acts with others of their same gender (bisexuals) then they were likewise guilty of the sin of homosexuality in Sodom. Finally, I disagree with you on the interpretation of Gen. 19:4-5. I maintain that these verses teach that all the men of Sodom went to Lot’s house with the desire and intent to engage in sexual relations with what they thought were two male visitors inside the house. The text places a threefold stress upon the fact that it was all the men of Sodom, both old and young, who were present and called on Lot to produce the visitors so that they could “know” (KJV euphemism for have sex with) them. Furthermore, the text does inform us that “all the people” of Sodom came out to Lot’s house that night. The text does not tell us what the women who must have been in the number were doing or desired to do. However, the text does tell us what the men were attempting to do.

To Be Continued

 

Post Continued

“And they called to 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” (Gen. 19:5, KJV). As we established earlier the translators of the KJV used the phrase “that we may know them” as a euphemism for “that we may have sex with them.” Likewise, Jude verse 7 says, “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cites around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh…” (Jude 7, NKJV). Sexual immorality includes homosexuality.

I believe that we really have come to closure on this issue especially in light of the things that we have agreed upon previously. My point was that you continue to argue against something that I am not and have not attempted to support. I do have firm conviction with respect to the interpretation of Gen. 19:4. When I used terms such as “perhaps” or “possible” I was attempting to show that your attempted presentation of an “air tight” interpretation is not actually all that “air tight.” There are other possibilities to consider. I was/am employing a rhetorical technique whereby I do not have to conclusively prove that I am correct and that you are wrong. All I have to do is prove that your argument is not completely conclusive or convincing and that other reasonable conclusions exist. Thereby showing that it is more reasonable than not that your interpretation is not correct.

I agree. God had already judged them and as such no sins that they committed or considered committing after that judgment had taken place had any effect upon them. Now, if they had repented of their sins and turned to God for forgiveness, as Nineveh did in the Book of Jonah, then we would have a different story. However, the Sodomites were completely unrighteous and Gen. 19 provides the account and witness to the fact that God’s judgment against them was Holy, Righteous, and Just. Additionally, my remarks concerning Abraham in Gen. 18 are most relevant to the discussion of Gen. 19 because there is a flow, or continuity, of context from chapter 18 into chapter 19.

Okay, so if the angels only struck a handful of people immediately adjacent to Lot’s door with blindness why didn’t the rest of them, those that surrounded the rest of the house, continue to press the attack? What you are suggesting would be like saying because the first troops off the transports at Normandy on D-Day were shot dead as soon as they exited the boats the rest of the soldiers simply withdrew from the attack. A huge mob, like the one outside of Lot’s house, bent on achieving some goal would not logically be deterred by a few guys being struck blind. However, if we interpret the verse to be speaking figuratively when it says, “And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house…”(Gen. 19:11, NKJV) to mean that the angels struck all those outside the house with blindness then it makes sense why no one continued to press the attack. Otherwise, we must address why the others did not bash down the down or force their way in through the windows etc.

You are discounting or ignoring the fact that bisexual people still engage in homosexual activity when they have sex with others of their same gender. Likewise, you are discounting or ignoring the fact that if a heterosexual man, for whatever reason, engages in a sexual act with another man on just one occasion he has committed the sin of homosexuality. Please don’t keep pushing the “exclusively homosexual” argument to the extreme. It is not the debate at hand.

Okay, I agree. I spoke without thinking that statement completely through. The angels never were in any real danger and I am sure that they were aware of that fact. However, from Lot’s prospective there was a very real threat of rape and physical harm to all inside his home that night. Like I said earlier, we have knowledge regarding angelic beings from the complete Bible that Lot and the Sodomites of Gen 19 did not know. However, we cannot read our biblical understanding back into this early OT passage and interpret it as if those OT people would have had the same knowledge with respect to the genderless state of angels. Thanks for your comments.

Yours is Christ,

BibbleboyII

 

Just for the record, I have read through the above posts and found a few typos. However, due to the new 15 min. edit feature I am unable to make the needed corrections to such long posts. I am not a fan of the new edit feature. I like to be able to correct misspelled words and grammatical mistakes after I have had time to step away and then re-read my posts.

 

Hello Barnabas7,

Thanks for the info. I have had a couple of fellow BB members tell me about the problem which resulted in the admin's making the new 15 min. edit rule. I understand why it was put into place. However, I still wish I could edit my posts to correct mistakes. Generally, when a type out a long post, I write in Microsoft Word then cut and paste the material into the BB. That way I can use the spell checker. Even so, the spell checker does not catch mistakes when you use the wrong word but have it spelled correctly. Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread by jumping off topic. I'll get used to the new edit rule. It'll just take a little time.