Fine. Then the fount can come in and fight my ignorance. If the men of Sodom only wanted to interrogate the men of Sodom in verse 5, explain the next 3 verses.
Interrogation is a wicked thing? So wicked, that he is willing to offer up his virgin daughters so they can “interrogate” them? I await the explanation with pins and needles.
Checkmate.
How do you know the “sin” in Ezekiel 16:50 wasn’t one of the other “abominations”:
Deceit (Proverbs 26:24-25)
Eating certain things such as:
Any sea critters tha do not have fins and scales, like shellfish. (Leviticus 11:10)
Three day old leftovers (Leviticus 7:18)
Eagles, ossifrages, and the osprays and various other birds (Leviticus 11:13-19) Verse 19, btw, incorrectly identifies bats as fowl, there goes the infallibility.
Creeping things, whatever that means. (Leviticus 11:41)
Things that go about on their bellies (I reckon that means snakes and worms) (Levititucs 11:42)
Reclaiming silver or god previously used to make idols. (Deuteronomy 7:25)
Sacrificing a blemished animal (Deuteronomy 17:1)
Remarrying a woman you’ve divorced after she’s remarried and been divorced or widowed. (Deuteronomy 24:4)
Burning incense and children (2 Chronicles 28:3)
Being an oppressor (Proverbs 3:31-32)
Rigged scales (Proverbs 11:1)
Lying (Proverbs 12:22)
Being “proud in heart” (Proverbs 16:5)
I could go on, but I’m bored with the exercise.
And besides which, if you are correct (and you’re not, but just for argument’s sake) and the real sin of Sodom was that they wanted to rape the angels… THAT’S NOT HOMOSEXUALITY. It is Rape. It’s a very different thing altogether.
There are lots of male:male rapes in prison. This isn’t because prisoners are all homosexual. It’s about power, control, domination, humiliation- sex is only incidental and orientation doesn’t figure at all.
And it’s already been established that rape is natural so long as it’s between a guy and gal on a nice moonlit evening.
Now it sounds like you’re not even reading what you’re quoting. He says “do not [know/interrogate them] wickedly,” not that interrogation is wicked. You’re arguing with people who know Greek and coming across as if you’re not familiar with English.
:rolleyes:
Try to keep up. I didn’t originally use the work interrogate. Diogenes did. That is what he said the men of Sodom wanted to do to the angels in verse 5. In verse 6 and 7, Lot is trying to stop them from interrogating them, even willing to give his virgin daughters to stop the “interrogation”. Such an interpretation strains credulity. BTW, Diogenes hasn’t cornered the market on Greek. I have studied it as well (not that it matters, since we are discussing Hebrew).
You’re in your apartment in a totalitarian country. There is a banging at the door. Outside are several armed villagers and party members. They are asking for your honored guest to come outside that they might “have a word with him”.
Do you:
1- Assume that they just want to talk to him and say “Here he is!”
2- Say “just talk to him through the door, sugar”
3- Assume “they’re here to start some shite”
While fire and brimstone raining from the sky, a woman turning to salt because she turns around and sees it happening, a father and his two daughters somehow believing that they’re the last people left on Earth (for no apparent reason) and starting an incestuous dynasty while meanwhile in another movie their 90 year old aunt has just had a baby is all just perfectly plausible.1 2
You live in a time and a place where
1- daughters in your house are your property to do with as you see fit
2- you have literally a holy duty to protect guests in your home with your life
Add to this the fact that the guests in your home are messengers from a God who’s about to rain fire on a city and who hasn’t taken his lithium in about 4,200 years, your fear of offending Him is going to be more than your fear of your daughters losing their hymen to a “perfectly natural” gang rape.
I have been checkmated by much weaker wits than yours. It is nothing to brag about. I was merely pointing out that your attempt of an ad hominum against Dio was in vain, as his pitting has nothing to do with his knowledge of the Bible, and that your assertion that abomination=homosexuality begged the question, a claim by me that you did not deny, by the way.
Even to spare angels? God’s messengers?
Wow, what a stunning defense! I now see the light, your interpretation is correct, while mine is obviously false.
And Contrapuntal, it is a stretch to say that the abomination referred to in Ezekiel is pointing only to homosexuality. I believe it is, along with several other sins. But it is clear (at least to me) from Genesis 19:5-8 that homosexuality is discussed.
Fire and brimstone from the sky is possible, IF there is an active volcano (no evidence of that though). On the other hand…
We have someone who is deliberately misquoting Bible passages he apparently doesn’t understand, in order to prop up preconceived ideas. Also, deliberately changing the chronology of events. Sodom was doomed BEFORE the mob confronted Lot and the angels. It wouldn’t matter if we brought in all the full fledged and degreed rabbinical scholars on the planet, the Pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, and God himself to refute and rebut. Obviously, they’d all be wrong.
The comments about King James (KJL? KJV?) and NIL (or is that NLV, UNLV, NFL or NBA) being the authoritative True Word, the apparent disinterest in other older and more authentic versions, and the disregard for any original texts (no time for Greek or Hebrew or any scholarly and authoritative explanations of the same because King Jim says…) should have told me this is just another lying bigot who has not the stomach to admit it.
Sodom was destroyed for abominations. We don’t like queers because it is an abomination (or so we say). Besides, abomination is a cool sounding catch-all word. It means anything we want. We decided to call queers sodomites. So, Sodom was destroyed for the abomination of being queer, for committing abominations and/or/including/only/meaning sodomy. We’ve gone full circle. It’s a poorly constructed circular argument, designed to defend a lie that has no basis in texts or in fact or in any reliable translations/teachings. There was a time that such “methods” would have been called Heresy.
I also know that the men do not want to just “interrogate” my guests. I would give my life before I would give my daughters.
I am not deliberately misquoting Bible passages. The words are there for all to see. Let me make it clear that I do not believe that Sodom was destroyed because the men of the city wanted the angels. I mistakenly suggested that earlier, but I have recanted that position, and I have said as much in post #136. Your continued distortion of my viewpoint is troubling.
I have interest in the original texts. But the Hebrew word for know used in Gen 19:5 is the exact same as the Hebrew word known used in Gen 19:8. Continue to believe what you want if it makes you feel better, but it is crystal clear from the context that I am right.
You live in the twenty first (or at least the nineteenth) century. Of course you would.
Lot did not. He lived in a place where daughters were property. I’m guessing that if you ended up holed up in a cave you wouldn’t get drunk and impregnate your daughters either, would you? Lot did.
If you’re correct (which you’re not), the crime of the men of Sodom is RAPE, not homosexuality. Rape was not an abomination; in fact, under certain circumstances it’s allowed (female prisoners, so long as you shaved their head and then let them go home after thirty days, but that goes without saying). Rape of females was in fact a property crime.
I’m guessing you’ve never had ANGELS, i.e. one degree of separation from the Maker of the Universe Himself, in your house either, have you?
In post 135, I showed how the word “know” can have many meanings. Most instances of its use in the Bible have nothing to do with any variation of sex at all. Too bad they hadn’t said “screw” or “knock boots” or “do the wild thing” “bump uglies” or just used the “F Word”. It would have been a lot clearer.
Is this where you recanted in that earlier post?
“Yes. It is possible.”
Then why is this in the same post?
“I was just trying to make the point that homosexuality was on the list of reasons why it was destroyed.”
It was not on the “list”. It was added to the list later. Centuries later.
From the same post, further down…
“They wanted to be able to physically interact with them.”
Dragging strangers out of a house and quite possibly doing so with the intent to question and kill them (my lynch mob comparison) is pretty physical too.
That’s sure some recant. We call it “talking out both sides of your mouth at the same time”.
Sometimes you have to do that when there is a dick in it. Of, course, I’m just guessing here. No cites to back it up. Just seems logical.
No. The only thing I recanted was saying that the sin Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for was the sin of the men wanting to have sex with the angels. That is obviously out of order and incorrect.
But I believe that the evidence presented in Gen 19:5-8 is proof that homosexuality existed in the city prior to this. And this is one of the reasons God destroyed it. Again, this is what I believe.
It is possible they just wanted to lynch them. I just do not read that as the most likely explanation from the context. Not trying to be confusing, and I hope that I have clarified my position
Homosexuality has always existed in every city and every time, even if it wasn’t called that. So it’s a pretty safe bet that homosexuality existed in the city. If you believe God destroyed the city for that reason, then why has he left so many others over the centuries that also have homosexuality within its walls?
You’ve got a very high self-opinion. You should be careful, 'cuz I’m not sure it suits you.
His interpretation being wrong wouldn’t make yours correct. You still have not proved your point. If you know the Hebrew, trot it out and explain where Dio and the others are making a mistake.
