latterrain77
New Member
Hi BibleboyII. Thank you for your comments. You said; "it seems as if you understand Sodom to have been a huge nation that encompassed a large area or land mass." . It's my understanding that the population of Sodom was larger than you suggest (i.e. 1000-10,000 people). But it hardly matters. Even using your lowest estimate (1000), it is still far-fetched beyond reality to believe that 1000 people could have simultaneous (or even a one-by-one rape/orgy) with two individuals as you earlier suggested.
You said; "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)?" Militaristic interrogation under the circumstances surrounding Sodom is well known to be acquainted with torture, severe abuse, and even murder of the interrogated. Such things are "wicked." In addition, the "war ready" nation could have sprung into yet another war or spree of violence as a result of the interrogation, which would also have been "wicked." Lot's first concern was for the well-being and safety of the visitors.
Lot could not have offered his so-called "virgin" daughters for sexual reasons because his daughters were MARRIED (Gen. 19: 14). As a result, the phrase "which have not known man" in Gen. 19: 8 cannot have a sexual connotation or refer to the "virginity" of Lot's daughters.
You said; "Clearly Lot understood that these men had gathered together for the purpose of having a massive sexual experience." I don't think so. If so, then it speaks more about Lot's depravity for offering his own daughters in the manner you suggest - though I don't think that's possible (2 Pet. 2:7)
You said; "The translators of the NKJV translate Gen. 19:5 as,..." Modern translations are fraught with taint. The KJV is certainly the most trustworthy translation, unmarred by the prejudices that follow modern translators with all of their "historical church" training baggage (i.e. "well, hey you know the church fathers said this verse means... so let's translate it that way"). The King James Version translators felt no such pressure. KJV still stands the test of time.
You said; " . 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." Your comment is reasonable. However, I do not base my understanding of Gen. 19 on one singular logistic (although it is an important one). For example, you (and others) keep referring to the "men" of Sodom when Gen. 19: 4 shows that it was ALL THE PEOPLE of Sodom from every quarter. If "All the people" includes Sodomite women, then the concept of an exclusively homosexual aggression towards the two visitors would be impossible by definition - even IF Gen. 19 had a sexual connotation (which I don't believe it does).
You said; "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." That would be good. However, you must admit that the common modern day imagery of the word "Sodomite" is one of a homosexual. Furthermore, you must admit that MANY so-called Christians often use that word "Sodomite" to deride (in a very unkind manner) homosexual people rather than pointing them to the Cross as true Christians are commanded to do with EVERY CREATURE (Mark 16: 15). Homosexuals are part of the Mark 16: 15 "EVERY CREATURE" as were the former homosexuals of 1 Cor. 6: 9-12. The 1 Cor. homosexuals were former ones ONLY because someone took the intiative to preach and reach out to them rather than curse them out. In any event, the word "Sodomite" does not accurately describe exclusive homosexual behavior because the Sodomites were NOT exclusively homosexual, such as the modern day so-called "gay community" is.
You said; " 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." I think it is relevant. Furthermore, Gen. 19:4 shows that it was ALL THE PEOPLE of Sodom, not "all the men." The nation of Sodom had a female population too (of course).
You said; "God had already judged the inhabitants of Sodom for their wickedness." Yes. I agree. And so, the judgment and destruction of Sodom as recorded in Gen. 19 could not logically have had any impact (because Gen. 19 came AFTER judgment on Sodom was already passed).
You said; "Clearly they did not succeed with their plan because the angels blinded the men (Gen. 19:11)." The angels did NOT blind ALL of the people of Sodom. They blinded the ones "at the DOOR" of Lot's house (Gen. 19: 11). Recall that Lot's house was encompassed around - surrounded (Gen. 19: 4) with people who were NOT at the door of Lot's house. Accordingly those people were NOT blinded, as the ones set at the door of Lot's house were (v11).
You said; " However, God's judgment fell on Sodom because He knew of their wickedness (all kinds of sinfulness)..." I agree.
You said; "...and their final wicked act based upon their sinful desire for homosexual, male with male sex,..." Gen. 19: 4, ALL THE PEOPLE must mean "all" of them - including the women. Accordingly, even IF the Sodomites were there for sexual reasons (and I don't believe they were) then the presence of women among them ruins any supposed exclusively homosexual encounter. Furthermore, I don't believe the Bible say's that homosexual inclination (desire) is a sin, but rather a particular act itself (Lev. 18: 22). If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. If you think I'm right, then how will it square with your idea about the Sodomites since they did NOT perform the act on the two visitors in Gen. 19?
Last thoughts; I have repeatedly stated that the ONLY Biblically mandated sexual encounters are those that occur between ONE husband and ONE wife in the marriage bed (Heb. 13: 4). In the marital bed, sexuality can be explored between the consenting husband and wife with all holiness (Eph. 5: 22-33, 1 Cor. 7: 5). With GOD's mercy, the great blessing of children may result (Psalm 127: 3-5). Thank you BibleboyII.
You said; "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)?" Militaristic interrogation under the circumstances surrounding Sodom is well known to be acquainted with torture, severe abuse, and even murder of the interrogated. Such things are "wicked." In addition, the "war ready" nation could have sprung into yet another war or spree of violence as a result of the interrogation, which would also have been "wicked." Lot's first concern was for the well-being and safety of the visitors.
Lot could not have offered his so-called "virgin" daughters for sexual reasons because his daughters were MARRIED (Gen. 19: 14). As a result, the phrase "which have not known man" in Gen. 19: 8 cannot have a sexual connotation or refer to the "virginity" of Lot's daughters.
You said; "Clearly Lot understood that these men had gathered together for the purpose of having a massive sexual experience." I don't think so. If so, then it speaks more about Lot's depravity for offering his own daughters in the manner you suggest - though I don't think that's possible (2 Pet. 2:7)
You said; "The translators of the NKJV translate Gen. 19:5 as,..." Modern translations are fraught with taint. The KJV is certainly the most trustworthy translation, unmarred by the prejudices that follow modern translators with all of their "historical church" training baggage (i.e. "well, hey you know the church fathers said this verse means... so let's translate it that way"). The King James Version translators felt no such pressure. KJV still stands the test of time.
You said; " . 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." Your comment is reasonable. However, I do not base my understanding of Gen. 19 on one singular logistic (although it is an important one). For example, you (and others) keep referring to the "men" of Sodom when Gen. 19: 4 shows that it was ALL THE PEOPLE of Sodom from every quarter. If "All the people" includes Sodomite women, then the concept of an exclusively homosexual aggression towards the two visitors would be impossible by definition - even IF Gen. 19 had a sexual connotation (which I don't believe it does).
You said; "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." That would be good. However, you must admit that the common modern day imagery of the word "Sodomite" is one of a homosexual. Furthermore, you must admit that MANY so-called Christians often use that word "Sodomite" to deride (in a very unkind manner) homosexual people rather than pointing them to the Cross as true Christians are commanded to do with EVERY CREATURE (Mark 16: 15). Homosexuals are part of the Mark 16: 15 "EVERY CREATURE" as were the former homosexuals of 1 Cor. 6: 9-12. The 1 Cor. homosexuals were former ones ONLY because someone took the intiative to preach and reach out to them rather than curse them out. In any event, the word "Sodomite" does not accurately describe exclusive homosexual behavior because the Sodomites were NOT exclusively homosexual, such as the modern day so-called "gay community" is.
You said; " 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." I think it is relevant. Furthermore, Gen. 19:4 shows that it was ALL THE PEOPLE of Sodom, not "all the men." The nation of Sodom had a female population too (of course).
You said; "God had already judged the inhabitants of Sodom for their wickedness." Yes. I agree. And so, the judgment and destruction of Sodom as recorded in Gen. 19 could not logically have had any impact (because Gen. 19 came AFTER judgment on Sodom was already passed).
You said; "Clearly they did not succeed with their plan because the angels blinded the men (Gen. 19:11)." The angels did NOT blind ALL of the people of Sodom. They blinded the ones "at the DOOR" of Lot's house (Gen. 19: 11). Recall that Lot's house was encompassed around - surrounded (Gen. 19: 4) with people who were NOT at the door of Lot's house. Accordingly those people were NOT blinded, as the ones set at the door of Lot's house were (v11).
You said; " However, God's judgment fell on Sodom because He knew of their wickedness (all kinds of sinfulness)..." I agree.
You said; "...and their final wicked act based upon their sinful desire for homosexual, male with male sex,..." Gen. 19: 4, ALL THE PEOPLE must mean "all" of them - including the women. Accordingly, even IF the Sodomites were there for sexual reasons (and I don't believe they were) then the presence of women among them ruins any supposed exclusively homosexual encounter. Furthermore, I don't believe the Bible say's that homosexual inclination (desire) is a sin, but rather a particular act itself (Lev. 18: 22). If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. If you think I'm right, then how will it square with your idea about the Sodomites since they did NOT perform the act on the two visitors in Gen. 19?
Last thoughts; I have repeatedly stated that the ONLY Biblically mandated sexual encounters are those that occur between ONE husband and ONE wife in the marriage bed (Heb. 13: 4). In the marital bed, sexuality can be explored between the consenting husband and wife with all holiness (Eph. 5: 22-33, 1 Cor. 7: 5). With GOD's mercy, the great blessing of children may result (Psalm 127: 3-5). Thank you BibleboyII.