[Jeff Higgins]

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.