Just an update on my earlier post regarding what the Bible does say about homosexuality (a fact-based post BTW). If you don't believe in the truth of the Bible, that's OK too. Once again, I'm just trying to clarify what it does say for those who are interested without casting a judgement.

The nuts-and-bolts rules section of Leviticus, Chapter 18 addresses sexual relations. It starts with "The Lord said to Moses" and then gets into it. After going through a long list of: don't sleep with your daughters, mothers, sisters, mother's sisters, etc. etc., we come to verse 22:
It then goes on to say that actions as included in the long list above were how the nations that God was going to displace (Philistines, Cannonites, etc) became defiled.

Regarding the translation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the most recent "translations" that I'm aware of were compared with the "Dead Seas Scrolls" copies of the relevent texts, which are hundreds, if not 1000 years earlier then some of the earliest copies of "Old Testment" texts.* Since I don't read ancient Hebrew, I've had to make use of an English language translation done by Martin Abegg Jr, Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich titled "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible" which should be available at BN or Borders.

In regards to Genesis, Chapter 18, verses 1 through 20 were not found in the scroll fragments. Here's what was found, note that anything that is within [] can be infered based on the spacing and location on the scroll, and I've filled in here based other traditional texts, but was not explicitly found. The text in Bold was found.

(starting with verse 20:)
The rest of chapter 18 that was found has the conversation where Abraham negotiates with God to try to save the two cities becuase of just a few rightious people. There is a gap in the scroll after verse 25. The scroll in question was found in cave 8 in Qumran.

There is an example of a possible update as a result of the Dead Seas Scrolls in verse 25, where Abraham is negotiating with God, which in traditional bibles reads...

Abraham speaking:
(New International Version translation)

Now the traditional Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible reads the same verse this way (English translation):
The scroll from the 8th cave in Qumran has that same verse this way (English translation):
Note that the Dead Seas scrolls version of the verse explicity does not contain the words "such as". Are your eyes glossing over yet? Does the shear magnitude of the change in the text shake the very foundations of the Christian faith???? :eek:

Nah. ;)

That's a pretty average example of the changes resulting from "new translations" stemming from new, more ancient copies of the texts. dhoward, what "New Translations" are you referring to? It would be interesting to delve into changes you are describing.

* Trivia fact, do you know that prior to the "Dead Seas Scrolls", the oldest written copies of the "Old Testement" were not as old as the oldest writen copies of the "New Testement".

A huge incident that occurs in this account is when the men try to smash in Lots front door to "get at" the angels and have sex with men because the men of the city think they see men that are fresh meat.

The angels strike them with blindness and they scatter not knowing what just happened to them.


If you read the account further you see that Lot, distrusting man in general now, hides in the mountains with his 2 daughters.

His daughters not wanting to be barren get Lot drunk and have sex with him in an effort to get pregnant and have children and carry on the family name.

This has always bothered me because this was supposedly a man in Gods good favor and yet with all this divine intervention going on the daughter are able to have incestuous relations with their father and all is good.

Two cities were wiped off the face of the earth for behaviour not too much unlike this.

Fastpat - you are correct, they were also involved with beasteality and pedophelia amonst many other perversions. If it had a hole in it a dick was going in.

BTW, to raise the conversation out of the detail for a moment, even the ancient Jews were sometimes confused about the different laws. The 10 Commandments don't mention homosexuality, but Leviticus does. How to reconcile?

A bunch of the Hebrew leaders posed that question to Jesus since he was acknowledged as a wise teacher, or Rabbi. One of them, a lawyer asked Jesus:

His answer:

So while homosexuality is a sin, (along with desiring your neighbor's wife, etc), the overiding commandment to Chrisitians is to love others (including Homosexuals) as we ourselves would like to be loved by others. (Note: the word "Love" implies the emotional relationship and not the physical act as the word is used in common English).

No, they're hypocrites for condemning others for the very acts that they themselves readily partake in. It's kind of like a policeman who writes you a ticket for speeding and then you see him the next day driving well over the posted speed limit. Sure, he's not perfect. But he busted you for doing something he readily does himself. How does that affect you respect for that particular police officer? If you see this behavior over and over from police officers, how this affect your respect for the police in general?

Christians do this "do as I say and not as I do" thing every day and after awhile it starts to affect one's respect for their beliefs.

Mike

Wikipedia...
According to the Book of Genesis, Sodom (Hebrew: סְדוֹם, Standard Sədom Tiberian Səḏôm) and Gomorrah (Hebrew: עֲמוֹרָה, Standard ʿAmora Tiberian Ġəmôrāh, ʿĂmôrāh) were two cities destroyed by God for their sins.

The story of Sodom has given rise to words in several languages, including English: the word "sodomy", meaning acts (stigmatized as "unnatural vice") such as homosexuality, anal sex, and the word "sodomite", meaning one who practices such acts. For the unnatural sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 13:13; 18:20; 19:24, 29; Hosea 11:8). Since then, their names are synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's just wrath (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:10 sqq.; Ezekiel 16:49; Matthew 11:23 sq.; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7). The Septuagint's Greek rendering katestrephe (Genesis 19:25) probably led to the opinion that the destruction of Sodom was accompanied by great upheavals of the earth, and even to the formation of the Dead Sea.
Situation
Sodom was the chief town of a group of five towns, Pentapolis (Wisdom 10:6; Genesis 14:2): Sodom, Gemorah, Admah, Zevoiim, and Bela -- later called Tzoar (Genesis 19:22). Their exact location is unknown (cf. Genesis 14:3, 8, 10, 17; 19:20-22, 30, 37; Deuteronomy 34:3). Josephus identifies Segor with "Zoara of Arabia" at the south end of the Dead Sea ("Bel. Jud.", IV, viii, 4; cf. "Ant. Jud.", I, xi, 4; XIII, xv, 4; XIV, i, 4). Conder identifies it with Tell esh-Shaghur, seven miles north of the Dead Sea; Burkhard, Wetstein, and others with Chirbet es-Safich, three miles south of the Dead Sea; E. Robinson puts it on Lisan, etc.

The Pentapolis region is also collectively referred to as "The Cities of the Plain" (which included Zoar/Misar), i.e. "the country about the Jordan" (Genesis 13:10) on the plain of the Jordan River, in an area that constituted the southern limit of the lands of the Canaanites (Genesis 10:19).

According to the Bible, Lot, a nephew of Abram (Abraham) chose to live in Sodom, because of the proximity of good grazing for his flocks.


[edit] The Biblical text
In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that He plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its gross immorality. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that He would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even 10 righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God follows through with His plans to destroy the city.

In Genesis 19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee:

4. When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end[of the city].
5. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them." (Judaica Press)
Lot refused to give the visiting angels to the men of Sodom and instead offered them his two daughters. The men refused to accept this compromise. The men were struck with blindness, allowing Lot and his family, who were then instructed to leave the city, to escape, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with fire and brimstone by God.

A similar event is recorded in the Judges 19:20-22, this time involving the town of Gibeah. This suggests that the occurrences in Sodom were not unique:

20. And the old man said, "Peace be to you, just let all your needs be upon me, but do not lodge in the street."
21. And he brought him into his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys, and they washed their feet, ate and drank.
22. As they were enjoying themselves, and behold, the men of the city, men of wickedness, surrounded the house, (and were) beating at the door. And they spoke to the man, the elderly master of the house, saying, "Bring out the man that came into your house, so that we may be intimate with him. (Judaica Press)

[edit] Jewish views
Classical Jewish texts do not specifically indicate that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.(compare Procrustes)

The Talmud also recounts the incident of a young girl (some sources say it was a daughter of Lot) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered her act of kindness, they smeared her body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was stung to death by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event (and her scream, in particular), the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So Hashem said, ‘Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see…" (Genesis 18:20-21)


[edit] The view of Josephus
Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote:

"Now, about this time the Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from Him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward." Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195
and Josephus recounts that angels came to Sodom to find good men they were instead greeted by rapists and sodomists[1]:

"And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness,623 so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population." Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202

[edit] Reformist Torah approach with Hebrew translations
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house"

The traditional interpretation of this story largely stems from the gender biased translation of the word enoshe Hebrew word #582 in Strong's in Genesis 19:4. Most versions say "men", which is incorrect. The Hebrew word enoshe is not gender-specific; it indicates mortals or people. The word esh would have been used to mean "man" or eshal to mean "woman" if gender specific terminology was meant. This translation gives the impression that just the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and the further impression that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. The word enoshe is used in Genesis 17:23 with the word zechar meaning "male" demonstrating this point.

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha specifically refers to homosexual coitus, with the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. Based on this interpretation, we lack conclusive grounds to assume that the men of Sodom only wanted to rape the visitors. We simply know that their intentions were unfriendly.

Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated "men" is again enoshe which, literally translated, means "mortal". This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were? However if the sin was rape, and the rapists were indiscriminate, then the sex of the strangers would not matter.

.....But as usual, yours are the only correctviews....
:rolleyes:

The only problem I have with all of that is if the men did not want to rape the visitors (angels) why did the angels strike them with blindness? Because they wanted to have an "intimate" discussion?

Thank you for your deference -- but that wasn't my intention. Now that I know to what you are referring, I understand what you said a little better. When I have some time I'll look up the references that you describe in your last 3 paragraphs. As far as the rabinic traditional views, I find them interesting and helpful, but hardly authoritative in regards to understanding the Bible since they heavily draw upon non-Biblical texts, rumours and other stuff.

Thanks for sharing!
SmileWavy

Wikipedia is a great source of information; no doubt. Its greatest strength is also its greatest flaw, however - anyone can contribute. Like I said before, there are any number of revised versions of scripture out there that subtly change passages near and dear to some one's heart. There are versions that go even farther than this Wiki reference in trying to debunk God's stance on homosexuality. They rely upon the "snapshot" approach to scripture, where they isolate their point out of context. They can build a convincing case in that manner, especially for those not well versed in scripture - their target audience.

Visiting angels were men in every other instance in the Bible. Why would it be any different here? Reading the entire chapter, even if it did not specifically call them "men", leaves a very clear indication that they were. The nuances of how men and women interacted come through loud and clear in the Bible. If these angels broke from the norm, and were in fact women, the Bible would have clearly stated that. That would be a VERY important point that the Bible simply would not gloss over. There would have been a very specific reason to send women. Unfortunately for modern revisionists, the God of the Old Testament was not an equal opportunity employer.

If Biblical scholars ever agree to revise the interpretation of this passage in a manner consistent with this Wiki interpretation (and I very much doubt they ever will), it will in fact change the meaning very, very little. If the crowd was in fact demanding that Lot release the mortals into their hands rather than the accepted translation men, perhaps it was more that they were challenging their divinity. They were presented as angels. I can see an angry mob saying "bull*****, those are no angels, bring 'em out here and we'll see for ourselves; heh heh heh..." There is still no chance whatsoever that these were women. Some one on Wiki either did not do all of their homework, or has an agenda. Most of these attempts at revised translations are from the latter.

Mike, Christians do not condemn anyone. Your analogy with the cop is just a bit off; Christians do not have the authority to "write the ticket". A more accurate analogy would be a couple of us sitting over a cup of coffee, and one of us says "you speed too much in your Porsche. Watch it, or someday you might get caught, and it will cost you". Both are speeders, driving their Porsches faster than they should on public roads. Both know it. There is no condemnation, no ill will whatsoever involved in this conversation. Just two guys that care if their buddy gets in trouble. That is how Christians view, and how they approach, fellow sinners.

Good point Jeff, also Lot offered his VIRGIN DAUGHTERS to the mob, if they were after a vagina to pound there was the chance, they passed.

That is really quite inconsistant don't you agree, if they were really after some woman they were served it up. They wanted the men.

I try to use common snese as much as possible when it comes to this stuff. Singling out one word and beating it to death never looking ot the context of the entire story will only serve a purpose for someone with an agenda to debunk.

It is ok to fantasize about Jack Bauer during sex, because your partner is doing it too.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1163690910.jpg

That wasn't aimed at you.
But, you don't take non-biblical texts from the same time period as relevant?

Never mind.
SmileWavy

Some feel they do.

Maybe "condemn" was the wrong verb to use, but I still think my point is valid. If Christians really act the way they do out of compassion for their fellow human beings, it sure does not come across that way sometimes.

Additionally, if "speeding" is only against the law according to *your* religious beliefs, can you understand why someone might not enjoy hearing that it will "cost them" if they get caught? Get caught by who? Just because you believe it is wrong to "speed" doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is right or wrong here - just that many view it as wrong based on their religious beliefs. Who are they to say, ultimately?

Mike

That's where the understaning of just one word and it's usage at that time becomes paramount to the context of a story. Especially when we're using a story to illustrate some sort of deficiency in others.
Seems as though the "Christians" are the ones with an agenda here.
:)

So the word meant Woman and not man.

Then why did the mob turn down the daughters?

It does not add up.

One can not elect to be homosexual or not. Either one is or one is not. In my opinion the sexual orientation is something one is born with.

I feel very sorry for those youngsters that is raised in a religious environment, that discovers that they are homosexual. They are in all aspects normal human beings, unavoidably 'afflicted' with a different sex orientation. An orientation that according to the church make them and their activities abnormal, morally wrong and generally less worthy. For gay people that truly believe in God and all that, it must be a disaster to be looked upon like a outcast because of something that does not hurt anybody else and they can not be blamed for in the first place.

For gay people that are lucky enough to not believe, like original poster say - they would be better off to take the ideas of the Bible more calmly.

Besides that - what IROC Mike say makes sense to me (usually does).

It does if it wasn't sex they were after.
That's why the translation is important.

I have an ex-relative who is a Franciscan Brother. His job is translation of Aramaic and Hebrew writings. Worked at the Vatican for a number of years, now a prefessor. Great guy, but only really opens up about his experiences after a large quantity of scotch. There are many more documents than you know about in possession of the church.
But they decide what's relevant.

BTW.
Kurt V is NOT gay. He just likes sex with men.




:eek:

Then why would the "woman" angles strike the mob blind?

Again it just does not add up. Again, it comes down to common sense.


It make a LOT more sense that a mod of MEN were after MEN to have sex with them, when they would not leave, and declined the offer for relations with the daughters, they were struck blind.


This of course is assuming you and I agree the bible is actually factual.


The topic on hand I believe was that gays want in on churches, Churches say no way, gays hate churches.

I also don't prefess to be perfect and I am as jacked up as the next guy.

Some of the stories inthe bible bother me a lot. I also have an issue with the fact that if you were not with god you were against him, a war would be waged against you, in the name of god, and you would die.