Homosexuality and the Bible - Finding answers in the Hebrew text

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ashley42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ashley42

Guest
What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? This is a widely discussed topic and the answers are not clear to us. Many believe the answer is simple, we just have to look towards Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus 18:22 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”), 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc.

What we need to remember is that the ‘black and white’ text we read in our version of the Bible is not so black and white. Bear in mind that the Bible, when it was first written, was not written in English. As such, there have been many translations from the original texts, and the word of our Lord has been morphed into what we see today. Just how accurate is it?

Well we can see from the fact that many different modern versions of the bible differ in their wording.

Genesis 19:5, New International Version:
"They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Genesis 19:5, New American Standard Bible:
"and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”

‘The Message’ says, “so we can have our sport with them!”. The King James version, “bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

So which is correct? And how should we even interpret the English versions? What does “Have our sport” mean? Sex? A game of football? Death?

To answer this, we can look in two places. The original Hebrew text, and the context in which the wording is found. Of course, when this passage was written, Football was not invented so put into context, we can rule that out.

The confusion arises from the hebrew word “yada”, one of the forms of the verb “to know”. A form of yada is used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context. (Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.)

Moreover, we know from Genesis 14:1-2 that Sodom had only recently come out of war, so it is likely that the citizens were on edge and wary of new visitors. Coupled with the fact that a non-sexual form of ‘to know’ was used here, it is likely that the citizens outside Lot’s house simply wanted to question the men inside about their intentions, to litrally ‘know’ them, not have sex with them.

Futhermore, we can learn more about the citizens true intentions by reading on. The scripture says that Lot eventually offered himself to the citizens, in place of the Angels inside. They said to Lot that “they were going to do worse to him than they were planning to do to his guests”. But the citizens did not try to have sex with him, they tried to kill him.

The other parts of the bible contain similar mistranslations. (I will go over them if requested).

When discussing homosexuality, in particular calling it a ‘sin’, we have to remember that the Scripture does not back up what we think we know. And now you know this, who should you believe? An unknown person on a forum, or the teachings of your local pastor?

First, remember that there are many people who try to use the mistranslations in the Bible to cover up their own homophobia. Someone who has deep seated hatred for homosexuals will not support this. Secondly, people simply do not like to be told that what they thought they knew is actually wrong. Specially when it is something they have ‘known’ for many years, something that they have leaned from members of their family or others they trust.

But know this: the word of our Lord comes not from your family, your pastor, me or anybody else. And specially not those who translated the holy scriptures! The one true word of God remains in the hebrew text. It is of utmost importance that we understand it, if we are to live our lives according to His word. So next time you call a homosexual person a sinner, or vote against gay marriage, think to yourself; “Do I really know the Scripture? Do I really know that I am acting on the true word of our Lord?”
 
So you do not consider a mortal beating worse than homosexual rape?
 
What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? This is a widely discussed topic and the answers are not clear to us. Many believe the answer is simple, we just have to look towards Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus 18:22 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”), 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc.



Well we can see from the fact that many different modern versions of the bible differ in their wording.

Genesis 19:5, New International Version:
"They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Genesis 19:5, New American Standard Bible:
"and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”

‘The Message’ says, “so we can have our sport with them!”. The King James version, “bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

So which is correct? And how should we even interpret the English versions? What does “Have our sport” mean? Sex? A game of football? Death?



The confusion arises from the hebrew word “yada”, one of the forms of the verb “to know”. A form of yada is used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context. (Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.)

Moreover, we know from Genesis 14:1-2 that Sodom had only recently come out of war, so it is likely that the citizens were on edge and wary of new visitors. Coupled with the fact that a non-sexual form of ‘to know’ was used here, it is likely that the citizens outside Lot’s house simply wanted to question the men inside about their intentions, to litrally ‘know’ them, not have sex with them.

Futhermore, we can learn more about the citizens true intentions by reading on. The scripture says that Lot eventually offered himself to the citizens, in place of the Angels inside. They said to Lot that “they were going to do worse to him than they were planning to do to his guests”. But the citizens did not try to have sex with him, they tried to kill him.

The other parts of the bible contain similar mistranslations. (I will go over them if requested).



But know this: the word of our Lord comes not from your family, your pastor, me or anybody else. And specially not those who translated the holy scriptures! The one true word of God remains in the hebrew text. It is of utmost importance that we understand it, if we are to live our lives according to His word. So next time you call a homosexual person a sinner, or vote against gay marriage, think to yourself; “Do I really know the Scripture? Do I really know that I am acting on the true word of our Lord?”
Concerning this statement you made, “The scripture says that Lot eventually offered himself to the citizens, in place of the Angels inside. They said to Lot that “they were going to do worse to him than they were planning to do to his guests”. But the citizens did not try to have sex with him, they tried to kill him.”

In Genesis chapter 19 verse 7-8 it says " And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." KJV

According to this scripture Lot did not offer himself but rather offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd so that they could rape them. Lot must’ve felt that the rap of his “male” guests was a much greater sin then the rap of his own daughters.

For a similar story look at Judges chapter 19. here there is no question that homosexual behavior is intended.

Also please read Romans chapter 1 Paul very clearly condemns homosexuality.

But to bring up these scriptures is perhaps pointless, because it has been the trend of the homosexual community to twist the scriptures into a homosexual worldview. For example many homosexuals have suggested that Jonathan and David were homosexual partners or have even gone so far as to say that Jesus and his disciples were. This is clearly not what the text is suggesting but whatever may be used to justify the homosexual position has been used

But consider this; when one knows that they are in the wrong but don’t want to admit it they go through a process of rationalization wherein they attempt to justify their actions and/or behavior. To illustrate this point allow me this, If i want to go down to the grocery store i do not say, “I’m going down to the grocery store to buy some bread… and it’s legal.” See when i know that my behavior is right, no justification is necessary there is no need to say “and it’s legal” everyone knows it is legal. “I’m going to go brush my teeth now, and it’s not sin” such things are not said when their is no question what is okay. By saying, “I’m Gay and it’s not sinful” is in it’s self a confession of guilt or at least is an admission that such behavior is not acceptable. Thus why Homosexuals feel the need to justify themselves at every turn even when it is completely irrational to do so, like in the case of saying that the Bible does not condemn Homosexuality, when in fact it does many times and very clearly so.

Respectfully Yours,
Jonathan
 
Moreover, we know from Genesis 14:1-2 that Sodom had only recently come out of war, so it is likely that the citizens were on edge and wary of new visitors. Coupled with the fact that a non-sexual form of ‘to know’ was used here, it is likely that the citizens outside Lot’s house simply wanted to question the men inside about their intentions, to litrally ‘know’ them, not have sex with them.
So Lot offered the ‘citizens’ his daughters; instead of the men, so they could simply question them instead? Uh huh.
 
According to this scripture Lot did not offer himself but rather offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd so that they could rape them. Lot must’ve felt that the rap of his “male” guests was a much greater sin then then the rap of his own daughters.
That’s right, but the men refused his offer. (I skipped out that bit for length). Its interesting to note that under the current law of the time, Lot also had the right to offer his sons in law.

As for Romans 1, I’ll go over that in more detail in my next post (work awaits!)
But consider this; when one knows that they are in the wrong but don’t want to admit it they go through a process of rationalization wherein they attempt to justify their actions and/or behavior. To illustrate this point allow me this, If i want to go down to the grocery store i do not say, “I’m going down to the grocery store to buy some bread… and it’s legal.” See when i know that my behavior is right, no justification is necessary there is no need to say “and it’s legal” everyone knows it is legal. "
Had Catholics and other religious people not tried to tell homosexuals that what they were doing is wrong, they would never have to try to justify it and we would not be where we are today. Consider this:

You: “I’m going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread.”
Me: “Ahh, but the Lord says you may not buy bread on a Tuesday.”
You : “Well, let me consult the Holy Scripture on that. I can find no reference to buying bread on a Tuesday. Do you want me to pick up some milk too?”
 
So Lot offered the ‘citizens’ his daughters; instead of the men, so they could simply question them instead? Uh huh.
Lot did not at first know the intentions of the citizens. We have to remember, they were an angry mob. If they were a friendly gathering, he would not have had to protect the men inside and probably would not of offered his daughters. The fact is, the citizens refused his offer - why would they want to question his daughters?
 
Had Catholics and other religious people not tried to tell homosexuals that what they were doing is wrong, they would never have to try to justify it and we would not be where we are today. Consider this:

You: “I’m going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread.”
Me: “Ahh, but the Lord says you may not buy bread on a Tuesday.”
You : “Well, let me consult the Holy Scripture on that. I can find no reference to buying bread on a Tuesday. Do you want me to pick up some milk too?”
Your premise suggests that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible, yet it is the Church says that Homosexuality is wrong because we know the difference between right and wrong innately by the light of God’s law that he has written in the hearts of men and by the Scriptures. the only moral view that tolerates homosexuality is hedonism. Homosexuality flys in the face of nearly all religions and even secular worldviews such as naturalism. They are no grounds in nature or in a proper concept of God (unless it’s Zeus)that allow for homosexuality.

We aren’t making this up

just because we hate gays

it actually says what we are saying it says

it’s very clear all around, but sadly there are those that won’t see it

Paul knew what homosexuality was when he wrote against it he even condemns in the greek the two forms of homosexuality the passive partner and the active
 
So it’s this old, dead horse again.
To those who know better, it is uncanny the excuse that Sodom and Gomorrah was about “hospitality” has actually remained in the apologetic of the homosexual advocates for so long, being that it is one of the most ridiculous answers ever devised by intelligent men. I
remember I first heard the “hospitality” excuse when I was in college in 1978. I took a minor in Psychology and in a class on Abnormal Psychology the professor, with tongue in cheek, stated that the more popular explanation psychologists were giving at that time concerning the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was that it had nothing to do with homosexuality; rather, it was about the sin of “inhospitality.” I remember distinctly, as soon as he uttered those words, the whole class went into hysterical laughter. And that, of course, is what we can do with “Reverend Cheri DiNovo’s” present advocacy of the “hospitality” argument.
Any biblical exegete worth his salt would tell DiNovo that in order for “hospitality” to be the central focus of the Genesis narrative, there would have to be some mention of “hospitality,” or some similar term, as that which was the object of God’s concern regarding the events occurring in Sodom and Gomorrah. As it stands, there is not one word about hospitality.
The only time hospitality is part of the narrative is when Abraham meets the three strangers who eventually condemn Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18:1f). To show kindness, Abraham and Sarah provide nourishment for the three strangers.
Second, Genesis 18:16-33 provides us with the actual conversation between God and Abraham concerning the fate of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 20 states: “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” Thus, the Lord has ALREADY seen the sin of Sodom, and it is exceedingly perverse. Hence, this couldn’t be the sin of “inhospitality” because the event concerning Lot and the men pounding on his door seeking to
consort with the angels has not yet occurred. That event won’t occur until the next chapter, Genesis 19. So “Reverend Cheri’s” argument is completely anachronistic, not to mention completely bogus.
Evidently, the Lord had been observing the sin of Sodom for quite some time, and it is the very reason he has come to Abraham. So perverse and so complete is the sin of Sodom (long before Lot’s door is accosted) that Abraham finds himself bargaining with God not to destroy the city if he can find 10 righteous people. Evidently, Abraham can’t find even 10 righteous people, and thus God plans on destroying the whole city.
Granted, Genesis 18 doesn’t tell us what the sin of Sodom is, but that information is supplied in Genesis 19:5 when the men at Lot’s door say: “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’” (NASB)
The clause “that we may have relations with them” is from the Hebrew word hdy YADAH, which means “to know,” and is often used in idiomatic form to represent sexual relations (cf., Gn 4:25: “And Adam knew his wife and she bore a child”). We know that sexual relations is the meaning of YADAH in this context because it is used again in regard to sexual relations with Lot’s daughters, as Lot says in verse 8: “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations [YADAH] with man” (NASB).
It is obvious to any unbiased exegete that the context of the narrative demands that sexual relations is the focus of the passage.
How else do we know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved illicit sexual relations? We know it from the many commentaries in Scripture on this very event. In fact, “Sodom” is used as a figure of sexual sin and is referred to as the place of divine judgment over two dozen times in Scripture (cf. Dt 29:23; 32:32; Is 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jr 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lm 4:6; Ez 16:46-56; Am 4:11; Zp 2:9; Mt 10:15; 11:23; Rm 9:29).
But more importantly, there are two explicit passages in the New Testament that tell us precisely that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual in nature. First there is 2 Peter 2:6-8:
“and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)”
The words “sensual conduct” are the Greek ajselheiva/ ajnastrofh:V ASELGEIA ANASTROPHES. The first ASELGEIA, appears 9 times in the New Testament and is usually translated as “lasciviousness” (Mt 7:22; Rm 13:13; 2Co 12:21; Gl 5:19; Ep 4:19; 1Pt 4:3; 2Pt 2:18; Jd 4), which refers to one having lustful, lewd or wanton thoughts or behavior.
 
Continued:
We also note here that the men of Sodom were tormenting Lot “day after day.” Hence, this is not merely a one-time occasion of force exerted at Lot’s door, but a continual display of lascivious behavior long before the angels ever arrived.
Then there is Jude 7:
“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
Here it is even more explicit as to the nature of the sin of Sodom. The clause indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh is from the Greek ejkporneuvsasai EKPORNUESASAI and ajpelqou:sai ojpivsw sarkovV eJtevraV APELTHOUSAI OPISO SARKOS HETERAS. The first is a combination of the Greek PORNEIA, which is derivation for our English word “pornography,” and the prefix “EK,” which means “out of.” The second phrase literally means “going after different flesh.” The operative word here is “different,” which is from the Greek HETERAS. In this context it refers to sexual relations that are “different” than normal sexual relations, i.e., homosexual relations
As to:
So next time you call a homosexual person a sinner, or vote against gay marriage, think to yourself; “Do I really know the Scripture? Do I really know that I am acting on the true word of our Lord?”
I have certainty in the God-given authority of the Church to infallibly define all matters of faith and morals contained in the deposit of faith.

Pax et bonum,

A
 
Lot did not at first know the intentions of the citizens. We have to remember, they were an angry mob. If they were a friendly gathering, he would not have had to protect the men inside and probably would not of offered his daughters. The fact is, the citizens refused his offer - why would they want to question his daughters?
Again Lot offered his daughter to be raped by the crowd look again at verse 8, “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish…”

Let’s be real about what it really says please, or there can be no real dialogue. Because it will just be us saying what it says and you trying to change what it says
 
In the forum “Gay marriage is a civil right”

you said,

“Not me. I know for one that there is no god, so I do not need to be bound by his definition of the term. To me, its the legal scope that matters.”

You posted this in another forum i hope you don’t mind me using it. It seems that you are quite willing to tell the Church how to interpret the Bible concerning homosexuality even though you don’t believe the Bible and misquote it.

Yet the language you use in this post seems to imply some belief. you use the terms “our Lord” and the “one true word of God” Why lie to us? Don’t you see your own condemnation?

See post # 1 last paragraph of this forum

“But know this: the word of our Lord comes not from your family, your pastor, me or anybody else. And specially not those who translated the holy scriptures! The one true word of God remains in the hebrew text.”
 
Your premise suggests that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible, yet it is. The Church says that Homosexuality is wrong because we know the difference between right and wrong innately by the light of God’s law that he has written in the hearts of men and by the Scriptures. the only moral view that tolerates homosexuality is hedonism. Homosexuality flies in the face of nearly all religions and even secular worldviews such as naturalism. They are no grounds in nature or in a proper concept of God that allow for homosexuality.

We aren’t making this up

just because we hate gays

it actually says what we are saying it says

it’s very clear all around, but sadly there are those that won’t see it

Paul knew what homosexuality was when he wrote against it he even condemns in the greek the two forms of homosexuality the passive partner and the active
 
Why use the Hebrew text–what’s wrong with the Septuagint from which the Bible comes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top