What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

[latterrain77]

Hi John. Thank you for your comments. You said; Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (Genesis 19:4-5)

If you were correct, it would mean that literally EVERY male ("all") in the city of Sodom (thousands upon thousands) wanted to have collective sexual relations with two angelic-or-messenger beings simultaneously. The idea seems ludicrous (not to mention physically impossible). Furthermore, Gen. 19: 4 suggests that "ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter" engaged in this confrontation, which may have included woman too since the Sodomites had daughters (Eze. 16: 49) - "all the people" means ALL.

The Genesis text does NOT say "so that we can have "sex" with them." It says that we may "know" them. The Hebrew word for "know" is "Yada" which means to "ascertain by seeing." It also means to know by; "observation, care, recognition." For example, Exodus 33: 13 says; "... that I may KNOW thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people." The word "know" here (yada) is the same word as KNOW (yada) in Gen. 19: 5. There are MANY more examples in the Bible of the word "know" (yada) used in like manner - voluminous examples. You are trying to interchange the word "know" with the word "knew" to make the text conform to your national sexual encounter concept. When translated as "knew" (rather than "know") it can denote a sexual connotation (for example as used in Gen. 4: 1). However, the Gen. 19: 5 verse uses the correct context and English word "know" rather than "knew."

You said; They didn't seem too interested in Lot's virgin daughters. . Certainly not! The men of Sodom at this time were more interested in national SURVIVAL not romance (heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise). Recall the horrendous war that the Sodomites had just endured prior to the angelic/messenger visitation (Gen. 14). Even the Sodomite King DIED in that war! (Gen. 14: 10). As a result of that war with all of it's loss, the Sodomites were trying to know (yada), ascertain, through direct observation the purpose of the visitation of these two angel/messengers.

Far from an unprecedented sexual encounter by 100% of Sodomite citizens upon two individuals, this inquisition at Lot's front door was an attempt at political or militaristic inquistion. The Sodomite concern about these two visitors was the natural and logical reaction given the disastrous results of the war that the Sodomites had suffered just preceding the angel/messenger visitation. That war is clearly recorded in Genesis 14. It turns out that the Sodomite concern about the militaristic intentions of these visitors was warranted too. The nation was destroyed by GOD, and the visitors played a vital role in that destruction. Thanks. latterrain77

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
I ran across this website written by at graduate of the Pensacola Christian College. On the website she explains her interpretation of several passages of Scripture regarding homosexuality. Here is the link to the site Homosexuality and the Bible Please read through her interpretations and answer the following poll.

I can't vote honestly for any of the choices. Sorry. This also means I can't see the results. Would someone mind PM'ing them to me, or posting them. Anyhow, here's what I say:

Question 1 of 2: Is the author correct in her interpretation of the Bible?
Choose 1
Yes, she is clearly a great Bible Scholar!

No, she has misinterpretated the Word of God!

She's certainly not a great Bible Scholar, but she hasn't misinterpretated (sic) the Word of God as egregiously as the received notions about Sodom have. She oversimplifies, but no worse than most on the other side of the issue do.

Question 2 of 2: Has the author been honest with the biblical text?
Choose 1
Yes, she has used sound hermeneutical principles and solid exegesis.

No, she has attempted to justify her own sin and twisted the Word of God.

Again, neither one. Her hermeneutics leave much to be desired, but the basic thrust of her argument is correct. She has twisted the Word of God, but not as tight as many antigay folks twist the same story. I have no basis for saying whether she's "attempted to justify her own sin" because I don't know what sin she has to justify. Certainly Sodom is an odd story to use to justify (or condemn) lesbianism. I don't hold lesbianism to be a sin, but if I did I would still think Sodom an odd place to seek its justification.

Haruo

 

[John Wells]

latterrain77,

I wish I could return the favor and thank you for your comments, but I must say I find everything you said to be bunk!

Far from an unprecedented sexual encounter by 100% of Sodomite citizens upon two individuals, this inquisition at Lot's front door was an attempt at political or militaristic inquistion.

Then why did Lot respond by offering to let them have sex with his two daughters instead? Your proposition has no merit in the context of this event. You're saying the town turned out to talk politics and Lot says, "hey, wanna have sex with my daughters?" Can you reference any notable theologian who shares your view? The great theologian John Gill says, "their meaning was, that they might commit that unnatural sin with them, they were addicted to, and in common used, and which from them to this day bears the name of Sodomy. As lawful copulation with a man's wife is modestly expressed by knowing her, Gen 4:1; so this unlawful and shocking copulation of man with man is expressed by this phrase; and that this was their meaning is plain from Lot's answer to them, Gen 19:8." Your notions are completely unsubstantiable. I'm sorry but I cannot debate/argue your off-the-wall exegesis. You can twist God's Word in your mind any way you want, but His truth stands whether you like or agree with what it says!

[ June 28, 2003, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by Haruo:
I don't hold lesbianism to be a sin

What matters is does God? I think the Bible clearly says yes!

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Haruo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BibleboyII:
I ran across this website written by at graduate of the Pensacola Christian College. On the website she explains her interpretation of several passages of Scripture regarding homosexuality. Here is the link to the site Homosexuality and the Bible Please read through her interpretations and answer the following poll.

I can't vote honestly for any of the choices. Sorry. This also means I can't see the results. Would someone mind PM'ing them to me, or posting them.</font>[/QUOTE]The vote so far is (for both questions 1 & 2):

14% (5) Yes
86% (31)No

Anyhow, here's what I say:

Question 1 of 2: Is the author correct in her interpretation of the Bible?
Choose 1
Yes, she is clearly a great Bible Scholar!

No, she has misinterpretated the Word of God!

She's certainly not a great Bible Scholar, but she hasn't misinterpretated (sic) the Word of God as egregiously as the received notions about Sodom have. She oversimplifies, but no worse than most on the other side of the issue do.

Hello Haruo,

I also noticed that I had made a spelling mistake in Question number 1; however, once you post a poll you can't go back and edit the text of the questions using the edit feature. You can edit the text of the post containing the poll--but not the poll itself. So I have to ask everyone to over look my

error. Besides it was nearly 3:30 AM when I made the original post!

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Haruo:
I don't hold lesbianism to be a sin, but if I did I would still think Sodom an odd place to seek its justification.

Haruo

Are you saying that you make a distinction bewteen homosexuality (being sinful) and lesbianism (not being sinful), or do you also not consider homosexuality to be a sin?

 

[HankD]

Recently a 2 hour TV documentary aired called "Trembling before G-d (sic)".

It is the view of homosexuality from the Hasidic Judaism point of view. Hasidism is the "ultra-orthodox" point of view, although they don't like the term "ultra-orthodox", you are orthodox or you are not a practicing Jew.

They were and are totally opposed to the homosexual life style. Not so much to homosexuality but the practice thereof.

Interestingly, the practice of lesbianism is not considered as serious as the homosexual practices among men (it has to do with the male "seed").

At the end of the show a conversation between a one time hasidic Jew and his one time rabbi, the following was said: The gay person said he couldn't help himself because he was born this way.
The rabbi answered (HaShem means God):
If HaShem has assigned you this desire, you must make the most of it in light of His Torah (Law).

HankD

 

[Pastor_Bob]

We are living in an age similar to the time of Isaiah when he delivered God's warning, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isa 5:20

Throughout our society there are many who are trying to force others to accept perversions of God's creation, which God plainly calls, sin. It was God's design to create us male and female. From the very beginning, man was to "leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Ever since this beginning, homosexuality and lesbianism have been a perversion of God's purpose for His Creation.

There are a lot of terrible sins besides homosexuality. But nowhere in the Word of God do you read where God destroyed a city or a culture for lying, murder, or stealing, yet He did for sexual perversion. Why? Because it is a direct attack upon God’s original purposes in creation. Through the male/female relationship, the human race was to grow and later bring a Savior into the world.

God did not create two men in the Garden of Eden. He did not create two women either. It was “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve” or “Alice and Eve.” If it had been two men or two women, common sense would tell you that the human race would have never continued. Homosexuals cannot reproduce; they must recruit. If you asked the homosexual community whether or not they recruited, I’m sure they would say “no.”

Listen to this quote by practicing homosexual Gene Antonio, given in an article entitled, “AIDS: A Weapon In the Hands of Militant Homosexuals,” Intercessors for America Newsletter , June 1987, p. 2. “We shall sodomize your sons. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your movie theatre bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in all your male clubs, in your houses of congress.”

I am convinced that the homosexual’s situation is a hopeless one apart from the transforming power of God. The lifestyle of the homosexual is probably one of the most enslaving habits of life ever known to man.

The danger of homosexuality, or any other perversion, is that it is never satisfied. Romans 1:27 tells us the men, “burned in their lust one toward another.” The effect of burning lusts is that the fulfillment of them must become more and more shameful. A man or a woman who won’t be satisfied with the boundaries that God has drawn around the marriage relationship will never be satisfied no matter what extremes they seek.

Just like a fire destroys what it engulfs and then has to find something else if it is to continue to burn, so men search for new forms of perversion to satisfy their ever-increasing desires. Emperor Nero was a homosexual. After he had tried everything imaginable, he offered a reward to anyone who could come up with a new form of perversion.

Human sexuality is like a fire. Under control it is beautiful and helpful and proper. Out of control, it is ugly and dangerous and deadly. That is true whether it is in your personal life, your home, or in society as a whole.

Note: These are excerpts from my morning message for tomorrow 6/29/03. The entire message will be posted on THIS SITE later today. Just click on the "Sermon Notes" link.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi John. Thank you for your comments. You said; I wish I could return the favor and thank you for your comments, but I must say I find everything you said to be bunk! One man's bunk is another man's truth. For me, the idea of thousands of men (perhaps including woman too - Gen. 19: 4) - literally 100% percent of the entire population of a nation having sexual relations with two people simultaneously, is WAY beyond bunk. Additionally, IF women were included in the national mob (Gen. 19: 4 - "all the people from every quarter"), then the idea of a national homosexual encounter goes out the window de-facto (obviously and unquestionably).

You said; Can you reference any notable theologian who shares your view? . I prefer to leave the parroting of "notable theologians" to others. The history of many in the "notable theologian" camp reads like a bad soap opera (turns out the earth was NOT flat after all, black people are not "mud people," and human women did NOT have sexual relations with so-called Gen. 6: 4 extraterrestrial giants). I wouldn't want to ape the "notable theologian" Martin Luther for some of the nasty things he taught. Ditto the "notable theologian" John Calvin who made notable efforts to have a man burned at the stake (Michael Servetus) over petty egotistical powerplaying reasons. I'm not as impressed with titles as you are John. Thank GOD I'm in GREAT company (John 7: 15).

You said; You can twist God's Word in your mind any way you want, but His truth stands whether you like or agree with what it says! We agree completely this one. GOD's truth does stand whether you agree with it or not. Thanks John. latterrain77

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
GOD's truth does stand whether you agree with it or not. Thanks John. latterrain77

Shouldn't that be "whether you or I agree with it or not," or do I detect a bit of self-righteousness?

You still didn't reconcile the question: Why did Lot respond by offering his daughters up for gang rape?

I guess when you take a radical line of interpretation of the Bible, one must denounce the great men of God through the ages!

 

[LadyEagle]

Pastor Bob, I wish there were more pastors like you preaching Biblical truth from pulpits instead of to "itching ears." God Bless You.

 

[dianetavegia]

Pastor Bob, I would love it if every minister here would post a link to their weekly sermons! I can't wait to read yours! Maybe we could start a permanent thread where the sermons were linked??

Again, I agree with SheEagle9/11! Well spoken dear sir!

Here's a link to a page that gives Biblical thoughts on homosexuality.

Click here for that page.

Diane

 

[HankD]

RE: Homosexuality, abortion...

God did not spare Israel for their sin why then would He spare our beloved America?

Pray for our nation and the Supreme Court judges that they repent.

Jeremiah 8:20 The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

HankD

 

[latterrain77]

Hi John. Thank you again for your comments. You said; Shouldn't that be "whether you or I agree with it or not," or do I detect a bit of self-righteousness? I only paraphrased your own comment John. You said, and I quote; " You can twist God's Word in your mind any way you want, but His truth stands whether you like or agree with what it says!" Those are YOUR words John.

You said; You still didn't reconcile the question: Why did Lot respond by offering his daughters up for gang rape? I did. Go back and read one of the prior posts. I will be happy to now elaborate further, though I do so on the condition that you respond to the numerous questions/comments that I have put to you previously, which you have not answered.

Lot did NOT offer up his daughters for "gang rape" as you have said. Rather, Lot was trying to bargain with the Sodomites to prevent them from approaching and interrogating the visitors. This is shown by the statement in v4 "...for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." Lot was more interested in protecting the interests of the visitors than he was in protecting his own daughters. Furthermore, and most significant to our discussion, Lot's daughters "having not known man" in the sexual sense (v8) does NOT jive with the fact that Lot's daughters were already MARRIED (Gen. 19: 14). Accordingly, the issue of Lot's offer appears more closely aligned to matters of becoming acquainted rather than the national "gang rape" that you suggest. The Sodomites, for their part, refused Lot's offer! As I previously stated, they were NOT interested in coming to know anyone other than those visitors, whom the Sodomites suspected were a threat to their National Security resulting from war that the Sodomite nation had just endured (Genesis 14). This is clearly illustrated in the next verse (Gen. 19: 9) where judicial and interrogatory policies are mentioned by the Sodomites, not the sexual or romantic ones that you suggest.

Please answer the questions that I have earlier put to you which you have not yet answered. Briefly they are; how can an entire nation of people have sexual relations with two individuals?, How do you reconcile your ideas about Jude 1: 7, when the word "Strange" ("heteros") in "strange flesh" (Jude 1: 7) does NOT mean "homosexual" (greek "malakos") in the New Testament (1 Cor. 6: 9)? Is it your understanding that when Gen. 19: 4 says "ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter" that it includes the women of Sodom too? (Eze. 16: 49). You still have not confirmed that HETEROSEXUAL sexuality was rampant in Sodom with it's large population. Please confirm if you agree. If you don't agree, please explain how all of those Sodomites - sons and daughters - were born? Please give your thoughts on the vicious Sodomite war described in Genesis 14 and what emotional effect that war would have had on the Sodomite nation going forward.

You said; I guess when you take a radical line of interpretation of the Bible... I don't believe my view is radical John. I do believe that the idea of an entire nation - 100% of the people, supposedly attempting to have simultaneous sexual relations with two individuals is a radical idea.

You said; ...one must denounce the great men of God through the ages! Not at all. Those "great men" of GOD did and taught things that were self-denouncing (see my prior post's examples). Also, when you refer to anyone in humanity as being "great men," you do not square with what Jesus taught AT ALL (Matt. 19: 17, Mark 10: 18, Luke 18: 19). I'm looking forward to your answers to my questions. Thank you John. latterrain77

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by HankD:
God did not spare Israel for their sin why then would He spare our beloved America?

The Israelites were the Old Testament chosen people of God. They also lived in a theocracy.

The people of the United States are not the chosen people of God - but there are some chosen people of God living in the United States. We live in a secular constitutional republic.

Also, I fail to see how 5 judges voting a certain way on a particular issue that only concerns the sexual sin of about 2-3% of the population makes all 280,000,000 of us candidates to be wiped off the earth by God.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
I'm looking forward to your answers to my questions.

Well, you can keep on looking because the notions you put forth are unreasonable pure conjectures with no sound basis and not worth wasting the time to debate.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
Please answer the questions that I have earlier put to you which you have not yet answered.

Well, I'm not John but I'll take a stab at your questions.

Briefly they are; how can an entire nation of people have sexual relations with two individuals?

Everybody get in line. Okay, you go first, then you, then you, then you, etc. etc. etc. Nowhere does the biblical text suggest that we must understand that the passage is saying that the Sodomites attempted for everyone to have sex with the strangers at the exact same instant. They were attempting to engage in a gang rape/orgy of sexual immorality.

How do you reconcile your ideas about Jude 1: 7, when the word "Strange" ("heteros") in "strange flesh" (Jude 1: 7) does NOT mean "homosexual" (greek "malakos") in the New Testament (1 Cor. 6: 9)?

This one I'll have to study and get back to you with an answer. However, off the top of my head I will point out that the context of the Jude 7 (btw: you don't call it Jude 1:7 because there are no chapters in Jude. It is simply Jude verse 7) is dealing with sexual immorality, which includes homosexual actions in just about every biblical reference where the term sexual immorality is used. So the all important context of the passage helps to derive the interpreted translated meaning of the Greek words used in the passage. Context, context, context.

Is it your understanding that when Gen. 19: 4 says "ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter" that it includes the women of Sodom too? (Eze. 16: 49).

I do not know what you are driving at with the Ezekiel 16:49 reference in relation to the Genesis 19:4 reference above. I don't believe that anyone here is attempting to make the argument that Sodom's only sins were sexual in nature. The place was a hell-hole of human sinfulness and that includes the sins listed in Ezekiel 16:49. However, the Genesis passage clearly says, "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house" (Gen. 19:4). Again, the full context of the verse is indicating that the passage is speaking specifically about the actions of the men, all the men, of the city.

Likewise, how many times in the biblical texts do we see references to the "the people" or "all the people" and only the men are numbered? Remember all the lists of the children of Israel where only the men of fighting age are numbered; however, only the men of fighting age do not really comprise the entire extent of the nation of Israel do they? Additionally, remember Jesus' feeding of the 5,000 and of the 4,000? These passages number the men that were present but do not number the women and children, who along with the men also made up a part of the multitudes that followed Jesus at the time.

Finally, your argument here is very weak at best. Did some of or even all of the women of Sodom show up for this proposed mass orgy outside Lot's house? I don't know. I suppose that they could have. However, the point is that the idea of a massive sexually immoral orgy with the "new guys in town" is what drove the people of Sodom to Lot's door. Sexual immorality, which includes both male on male and female on female homosexuality, bi-sexual activity, heterosexual fornication between unmarried people, and adultery between married people, is what the passage is talking about.

You still have not confirmed that HETEROSEXUAL sexuality was rampant in Sodom with it's large population. Please confirm if you agree. If you don't agree, please explain how all of those Sodomites - sons and daughters - were born?

As you point out the people of Sodom did engage in heterosexual relations which resulted in the procreation of children. However, this does not mean that they were not a sexually immoral people who also practiced bi-sexual and homosexual activities and even worse engaged in sexual activity with animals. Again, the point is that the Sodomites were a very wicked and sinful people and the sin of sexual immorality was rampant among them.

Please give your thoughts on the vicious Sodomite war described in Genesis 14 and what emotional effect that war would have had on the Sodomite nation going forward.

It seems that you are attempting to say that the war of Genesis 14 and the destruction of Sodom due to its rampant sin in Genesis 19 occur almost on the heals of one another. However, the period of war took place before the birth of Ishmael. Abram was 86 when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). Then in Genesis 17:1 we see that Abram was 99 years old when he received the circumcision as a sign of the covenant with God. Furthermore, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5). So the Sodomite war was before Ishmael was born (Abram was 86) and the events of Genesis 19 occur some time during Abraham's 99th and 100th year. That means that it is reasonable to say that somewhere between 13 and 15 years have passed between the events of Genesis 14 and Genesis 19 (assuming a very strict chronology and depending on the exact dates of Ishmael's and Isaac's respective births). This means that a new generation of Sodomites have been born and parts of an elder generation of Sodomites have died between the time of the war and the events of Genesis 19 (of course there were still some survivors of the Genesis 14 war living during the time of Genesis 19).

Anyway, regardless of the “emotional effects” of war we can not use the horror and ravages of war to justify our wicked and sinful behavior. The sinful behavior under consideration in Genesis 19:1-5 is the sexual immorality, which includes homosexuality, of the sodomite people. However, this sexual immorality is not their only sin (remember your reference to Ezekiel 16:49). They were an absolutely unrighteous, wicked, and sinful people. There were not even 10 righteous people among the entire population (Genesis 18:32) and that is why God destroyed them.

[ June 29, 2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[HankD]

The Israelites were the Old Testament chosen people of God. They also lived in a theocracy.

The people of the United States are not the chosen people of God - but there are some chosen people of God living in the United States. We live in a secular constitutional republic.

Proverbs 10:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Also, I fail to see how 5 judges voting a certain way on a particular issue that only concerns the sexual sin of about 2-3% of the population makes all 280,000,000 of us candidates to be wiped off the earth by God.

Proverbs 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi BibleboyII. Thank you for your comments. I'm not sure that we disagree about the sinful nature of Sodom. I agree, they were exceedingly sinful. However, they were NOT exclusively homosexual. THAT is the point.

You said; "Everybody get in line. Okay, you go first, then you, then you, then you, etc. etc. etc." This is as impossible as if it were simultaneous. Recall that it was the ENTIRE nation of Sodom - not just a few or number of people within it. The whole idea of a 100% entire population of people in a nation, sexually assaulting two individuals, no matter what the order, is so absurd and so wholly unsubstantiated by the text itself, that it borders on the frantic.

You said; "They were attempting to engage in a gang rape/orgy of sexual immorality. " An entire nation of people - thousands - trying to "rape/orgy" two individuals? It is a ridiculous idea, physically impossible, and not in the text.

You said; " btw: you don't call it Jude 1:7 because there are no chapters in Jude. It is simply Jude verse 7 " I'm well familiar with your "by the way" bibleboy. But LONG ago, I decided to use the "chapter" in single chapter books of the Bible becaue it's been my experience that many Christians in Bible study groups (and churches I've attended) became confused by doing it "your way" (i.e. "hey, there is no chapter 7 in Jude"). I'd rather edify the others than sticking to some pomp and circumstance first year Bible student rules. Accordingly, I properly use "chapters" in single chapter books - i.e. Jude, Philemon, 2 John, or any other single chapter book in the Bible. You may call it whatever you wish.

You said; ".... is dealing with sexual immorality, which includes homosexual actions in just about every biblical reference where the term sexual immorality is used. " The word "strange flesh" means "other or different" ("heteros"). It does NOT mean homosexual. In the New Testament, homosexual is described as the Greek word "malakos" (1 Cor. 6: 9). The phrase "other flesh" or "different flesh" does not mean homosexual in any manner - not in English and not in Greek. I agree with you that some of the context of Jude includes sexual immorality, but this is not exclusive to homosexuality, but rather all sexuality that occurs outside of marriage (Heb. 13: 4). Furthermore, the Jude text generally speaks towards wickedness in general - not specifically sexuality. For example, there was no sexuality practiced among the "angels who kept not their first estate" (Jude 1: 6).

You said; " I do not know what you are driving at with the Ezekiel 16:49 reference in relation to the Genesis 19:4 reference above." Eze. 16: 49 illustrates that the Sodomites had DAUGHTERS. Accordingly, the question I raised was whether these daughters were included in the Gen. 19: 4 text where it say's "ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter." ALL the people from every quarter must mean ALL of them. Right?

You said; "Did some of or even all of the women of Sodom show up for this proposed mass orgy outside Lot's house? I don't know. I suppose that they could have." If yes, then the whole idea of an exclusively homosexual encounter goes out the window DE-FACTO.

You said; "As you point out the people of Sodom did engage in heterosexual relations which resulted in the procreation of children." I'm glad you see this. However, many (most?) so-called Christians, and society itself, cling to an imagery that Sodom was an exclusively 100% homosexual nation - which is untrue and unBiblical. This misconception continues right up until our day, and allows the word "Sodomite" to be used as a slur to describe homosexuals.

You said; "that means that it is reasonable to say that somewhere between 13 and 15 years have passed between the events of Genesis 14 and Genesis 19 (assuming a very strict chronology and depending on the exact dates of Ishmael's and Isaac's respective births). " 13-15 years is reasonable. The effects and memory of war linger MUCH longer than 15 years. For example, Viet Nam occurred over 30 years ago and it's effects and memory are still profoundly felt. We still remember and feel the results of WW1 and WW2 and that was MANY years ago - and all of these wars had largely positive outcomes for our Nation. The war of Sodom as described in Gen. 14 was disastrous for that nation with nothing positive in it at all. Even the king of Sodom was killed in that war (Gen. 14: 10). There is no doubt that the nation of Sodom would have been on heightened alert, security minded, and inquisitive concerning strangers entering the nation for many years to come. This is especially so when the host of those strangers (Lot) was a stranger himself! Gen. 19: 9 bears this out.

You said; "Anyway, regardless of the “emotional effects” of war we can not use the horror and ravages of war to justify our wicked and sinful behavior." . I agree. However, there is nothing wicked and sinful about National Security. In fact, it is wise and prudent.

You said; "They were an absolutely unrighteous, wicked, and sinful people. There were not even 10 righteous people among the entire population (Genesis 18:32) and that is why God destroyed them." I agree. But I do not believe that they were destroyed as a result of exclusive homosexuality, because they were NOT exclusively homosexual. Their huge population proves this to be so. Therefore, it is dishonest to refer to homosexuals as Sodomites. The overriding sin of Sodom was PRIDE, ARROGANCE, and lack of humility. Pride, arrogance and lack of humility are characteristics of some people who go to church every Sunday. Thank you again for your comments BibleboyII. latterrain77

[ June 29, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello Latterrain,

When you speak of Sodom and all the people of the “entire nation” being involved in the proposed rape/orgy in Gen. 19:4, it seems as if you understand Sodom to have been a huge nation that encompassed a large area or land mass. That is not the case for Sodom was a City-State. It would have been a fortified city (much like Jerusalem in King David's day). You know what I mean it was a walled city with it own King. It would have had a bunch of people living in and doing business inside and/or in close proximity of the city walls. The whole region was made up of these city-states and each had its own King and walled fortifications. Gomorrah was another such City-State in the same regional area. I don't know how many people lived in Sodom. It could have been about one thousand or around ten thousand.

Your national security theory does not stand to reason when one considers Lot's response to the crowd of men outside his house. If the men of Sodom had only wanted to ascertain who these strangers were and their purpose for entering the city, why would Lot have told them not to act so wickedly and offered to allow them to have sex with his virgin daughters (Gen. 19:6-7)? Clearly Lot understood that these men had gathered together for the purpose of having a massive sexual experience. The translators of the KJV used the euphemism "that we may know them" in Gen. 19:5. It was a common translation tactic to avoid coming right out and saying that someone had or had not had, or was having, or wanted to have sex (see Gen. 19:8 referring to Lot's virgin daughters).

The translators of the NKJV translate Gen. 19:5 as, "That we may know them carnally." The NIV says, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them' (Gen. 19:5, NIV). The NASB states, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them' (Gen. 19:5, NASB)." The Amplified Bible says, "And they called to Lot and said, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them’ (Gen. 19:5, AMP)." The NLT reads, “They shouted to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them' (Gen. 19:5, NLT)." Finally, The CEV translates it, "and started shouting, 'Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!' (Gen. 19:5, CEV)." Clearly, that passage (Gen. 19:1-11) is saying that all the men of the City of Sodom gathered around Lot's house for the express purpose of sexually assaulting the visitors inside his house. Simply because you can not wrap your mind around the logistics of how all the men of Sodom intended to have sex with the visitors does not provide a sound hermeneutical principle or basis for you to interpret the passage in question to mean that homosexual activity was not the intent of the Sodomites outside Lot's house.

I don't think that anyone in the debate here on the BB is or has attempted to say that the sin of homosexuality was the sole reason that God destroyed Sodom. However, the wicked homosexual desire of the lust-filled men of Sodom was the straw that broke the camel's back. Look at Gen. 18:16-33. The Lord and two other men were visiting Abraham (Gen. 18:1-2). As the Lord prepared to depart from Abraham He questioned whether of not to inform Abraham of His plans destroy Sodom for its sins (Gen. 18:16-17). As Abraham attempted to intercede with the Lord for Sodom's sake the two men with Him turned away and went toward Sodom. God sent them there to ascertain if Sodom was really as bad as the outcry against it reported (Gen. 18:21). Abraham got God to agree that if 10 righteous men could be found in Sodom that He would spare the city (Gen. 18:23-33). Then we have the events of Genesis 19 where the two men enter the city and go to Lot's house. Now, just as the Lord already knew there were not any righteous men within the City of Sodom. Genesis 19:4 makes it clear that all of the men of Sodom, both old and young, sought to participate in the gang rape/orgy of sexual immorality outside Lot's house. Thus, the Lord's angels instructed Lot and his family to escape the city before God's righteous judgment fell upon Sodom.

The point that you are attempting to make as to whether or not it would have been possible for "all the men of Sodom" to engage in the gang rape/orgy of sexual immorality with the visitors to Lot's house is irrelevant. God had already judged the inhabitants of Sodom for their wickedness. However, out of His kindness and love for Abraham God agreed to stay His hand of judgment long enough to see if there were even 10 righteous men in the city. Of Course, there were not (as God already knew but He wanted Abraham to understand as well). God's judgment did not fall on Sodom because the Sodomite men actually went through with their proposed homosexual act with the visitors. Clearly they did not succeed with their plan because the angels blinded the men (Gen. 19:11). However, God's judgment fell on Sodom because He knew of their wickedness (all kinds of sinfulness) and their final wicked act based upon their sinful desire for homosexual, male with male sex, sealed their doom and brought God's Holy and Righteous punishment down upon their heads.