That is literally the world’s oldest pickup line, dating back to a fruit tree in Mesopotamia ca. 4004 BCE.
When Greek gods came down to associate with mortals or cruise chicks, they usually took another guise (swans, bulls, husbands, etc.). Semele (mother of Dionysos) was actually killed/incinertated when she looked upon Zeus in his true form.
Angels and G_d also take guises in the Bible. I wonder what the connection is.
I think a quote from Gustav Davidson’s A Dictionary of Angels is apropos here:
That depends on whose bible you’re talking about. The Book of Tobit (or Tobias) is canonical in the Catholic and Orthodox bibles and Raphael plays an important role in that.
That’s a non sequitur. Animals and plants are also different orders of being, yet most of them have gender.
You may be completely right. But isn’t it only the King James bible that uses “know” as a euphemism for “have sex with”, and isn’t an answer available by consulting another version - preferably derived from the source texts and not the AV - in which there isn’t this ambiguity? Or indeed by going to the source?
(I’m more of the “Sodom was indeed full of depraved homosexual rapists, but that was only a symptom of what a hellhole it was; it was rotten to the core, and that’s what got it the fire-and-brimstone cure” school of thought, myself)
Ball gags? Nah, more fun to hear the little piggies squeal… 
The word used in Hebrew is Ya,da´, and “know” is a literal translation of it. It almost certainly is a euphemism in this passage, as it is in Genesis 4:1 - “And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she concieved”, Genesis 4:25 - " And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth", etc. For a very close parallel:
Judges 19:25 :
In the light of the above, I would agree with your interpretation of Genesis 19.
A digression. The KJV is generally a better resource for literal translations than most modern versions, certainly far better than the NIV. However, it doesn’t use the most reliable source texts, and some of its English vocabulary is rather archaic these days.
Right, which is why I specified “in Judaism”. I can’t tell you about other religions’ holy books.
OK, angels are a different order of being from anything created on the earth. They aren’t similar to humans, plants or animals, and are not related to dead humans at all.
OK, people, as far as actual fact goes, we don’t know anything about Angel’s sex. Maybe they do have male and female. Maybe they have other things. We don’t know nor is it relevant, since they probably don’t feel much urge to “know” (wink) each other.
Of course, it might be amusing if they had other kinds of sexual characteristics… Couldn’t you see al the male angels standing around Heaven’s alleyway drinking beer and sayin’ “Yep.”? Couldn’t you see all the female angels sitting chatting all day at 7,000 words per second? Couldn’t you see both groups launching the biggest flame ever on Smiling Bandit? Ducks flamefest he unleashed
…and we have a WINNER in the Straight Dope “Understatement of the Year” contest! 
Then it’s safe to tell an angel, “Go f___ yourself?” :eek:
In Arabic the word for angel is malak in the singular, which is grammatically masculine. However, the singular form of this word isn’t used much in the Qur’an. It does use the plural form of the word very frequently: mala’ikah, which is feminine.
This Arabic feminine plural was borrowed into Swahili as a singular noun meaning ‘angel’, used in love songs for women, as in the hit song “Nakupenda Malaika” (I love you, angel), recorded by Miriam Makeba, that was so popular all over Africa in the 1960s.
Cite? I see no reason that it shouldn’t be read as “know who they are.” We’re given no other context to suggest that the crowd was there to rape the visitors. Lot’s offer of his daughters suggests that he though he might appeal to the men’s lust in order to distract them from what he presumed to be their murderous inclinations.
Well, we can’t prove that it’s a euphemism in Genesis 19 - it might be meant literally, although I personally think it’s unlikely.
Do you agree that it’s a euphemism for sex in Genesis 4:25, quoted above? And let’s look at the whole passage from Judges: Judges 19:22-26.
“Know” is both what the “sons of Belial” wanted to do to the man, and what they actually did to the concubine. It might not be sex, but it’s (a) a “vile thing” that is (b) described as “abuse”. I find it difficult to imagine anything else it might be; it certainly isn’t just “making the acquaintance of”, which would be the literal meaning of the word.
No, they didn’t know the concubine. They abused, humbled and [did] what seemeth good to the concubine. It is not possible that the vile thing they wanted to do to the man was perhaps beat and rob and harass him, but they decided gang raping his concubine was fun enough and still a good way of teaching the man a lesson (that being “don’t come here”)? (In either case, for the way he treats his concubine afterwards the Levite in that section is quite possibly the most despicable character in the entire OT not to be specifically stated as in league with the devil, and that’s saying something.)
Well, strictly speaking, the old man (the host) invited them to “humble” and “do what seemed good to them” to both the concubine and the Levite’s daughter, and what they actually did was “know” and “abuse” the concubine.
I assume you mean “Is it not possible?”? Yes, I agree. Nothing explicit is said - I think we can be confident that violence is involved, and I would still suggest that it may have had a sexual component, but I accept that we can’t say for certain that the mob’s initial motivation was sexual.
Very true. The Levite’s description of the incident in Judges 20:5 isn’t exactly a model of accuracy:
However, I accept it’s valid to make the point that he claims to have been in fear of his life, rather than his - virtue, for want of a better word.
Reading between the lines, it looks as though the whole thing was designed to provoke a war between Israel and Gibeah; nobody really comes out of it with much credit, but human nature is unfortunately like that.
On the primary issue, I’ll retreat to Genesis 4:25 and 1 Samuel 1:19. I don’t think there’s a way of interpreting “know” as anything other than a euphemism for sex in those passages.
And from Matthew 1:
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
–which you’ll struggle to parse as “did not make the acquaintance of”.
Indeed. 
And, just to clarify, “know” is also a literal translation of the Greek ἐγίνωσκεν in this passage.
Except that when reading the OT in the original Hebrew some of the names of G-d are female, and some are plural.
Dude. When do we inaugurate the mutual admiration society?