Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality in the Bible.

[_Bryan Inks]

Fixed the emphasis

know Hebrew "yada`yaw-dah' ":

a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow):--acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit, wot.
yda`yed-ah'

Could you provide your source please? Is this Strong's, Young's, Cruden's, or what? I'd prefer that BDB be used, for obvious reasons. I've highlighted the relevant portion in this definition.

And by "relevant" you mean "doesn't appear to apply", right?

Did you read that list? Out of the dozens of possible applications of Ya'da, only one of them has a sexual connotation and it isn't even one of the primary definitions. (Assuming that this list is compiled in the standard method of putting the most applicable meanings first).

And I don't think that the information given is enough to justify the assumption of context.

As I said, in the nearly 1000 instances of "ya'da" appearing, only a dozen or so have a sexual connotation and it blatantly obvious from the context surrounding the word as to why.

This verse is the sole exception to that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Does anyone reading here have information regarding Sojourner Law? If so, would you please post it?

Jersey Girl

[_Fortigurn]

Homosexuality is not mentioned. In fact, the only thing it says about Sodom and Gomorrah, it mentions "an abomination". However, given the times, there were only, what? 500 some-odd abominations? Defining this particular one as homosexuality without further information is criminal.

Let me make this clear:

* I have said absolutely nothing about the sin of Sodom being homosexuality

* I have stated specifically that there is no 'sin of homosexuality' in the entire Bible

* I have urged people in this thread and one other thread to make a distinction between homosexual identity and homosexual behaviour

* In this thread I have been addressing specifically the homosexual behaviour in Genesis 19

I hope that's clear now.

In the NIV, yes, you are correct. They did make it clearer according to their understandings. But since most Mormons don't even know there are other translations of the Bible, I kept my focus on the KJV. Which, if you read it again, is misleading. It does say exactly what you wrote and I addressed that in the original post.

As I pointed out, even in the KJV it says nothing of women and children. But since the KJV is irrelevant to the true meaning of the Hebrew text, and since I'm not a Mormon, and since we're trying to determine the true meaning of the Hebrew text, then the KJV is irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, I addressed this in the original post. Genesis 19 is the only place of the nearly 1000 instances of "know" in which it is not readily clear from context what the word was intended as.

Actually you claimed this in your original post, but you didn't prove it. I really don't see what's so ambiguous about the use of the word here. Lot understood it perfectly well.

* Lot's offer of his daughters is both sarcastic and offensive. Firstly they were married (as everyone in the situation knows), and thus not virgins, but his point is that they're virgins from the point of view of the anal sex which the men are demanding. Secondly his derisive offer of women rather than men explicitly attacks their sexual behaviour as aberrant. That they did not take this as a conciliatory gesture is clear from the fact that Lot's words enraged them, and they swore to do more to Lot than they intended to do to the angels (a clear indication that their self-described intentions towards the angels were violent and were certainly not going to be consensual).

A. His daughters were engaged to be married. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that before. There is a slight difference between "married" and "engaged to be married". . . one that I think is fairly obvious.[/quote

Where does it say they were only engaged?

B. Even if they were planning violence, I think it is extremely misleading to assume that included rape. They were in a war zone, for love's sake. If two completely strange people walked onto a US base during war time, I know for a fact that they would be given one chance to identify themselves and then they would be shot.

Well part of this argument of yours depends on the meaning of 'yada' here, but we're already dealing with that. That aside, where does it say they were in a war zone? Bear in mind that the men walked through the gate of the city, which is where Lot also sat, and that they would not have been permitted to enter if the people at the gate didn't want them in.

It's common sense, man. You don't let your enemy into your stronghold.

Can you show me where: the men of Sodom thought that these men were their enemies? And can you explain why they let them through the gate if they thought so? And since they were now in Lot's own house, in the middle of the city, someone obviously did let them into the 'stronghold', whatever this 'stronghold' is supposed to be.

As I said, I don't think there is enough evidence either way, however, based on the information found in the Genesis tale, I think the evidence is weighted heavily towards "finding out if they were spies".

All I need is some evidence for this argument, so I can evaluate it. Look at the Jericho narrative in Joshua, as a control text.

[_Fortigurn]

Fixed the emphasis

know Hebrew "yada`yaw-dah' ":

a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow):--acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit, wot.
yda`yed-ah'

Could you provide your source please? Is this Strong's, Young's, Cruden's, or what? I'd prefer that BDB be used, for obvious reasons. I've highlighted the relevant portion in this definition.

And by "relevant" you mean "doesn't appear to apply", right?

No, by 'relevant' I mean does apply.

Did you read that list? Out of the dozens of possible applications of Ya'da, only one of them has a sexual connotation and it isn't even one of the primary definitions. (Assuming that this list is compiled in the standard method of putting the most applicable meanings first).

Yes I read the list, yes I'm aware that 'know' isn't among the primary definitions, and no that doesn't actually matter because what it shows is that this sense is within the semantic domain of the word, and that was the initial point under contention.

And I don't think that the information given is enough to justify the assumption of context.

Exactly why do you say this?

As I said, in the nearly 1000 instances of "ya'da" appearing, only a dozen or so have a sexual connotation and it blatantly obvious from the context surrounding the word as to why.

This verse is the sole exception to that.

Why do you believe that this is an exception?

[_Jersey Girl]

Fortigurn,

Can you paste the full text of Gen 19 here from the translation you're using? I won't be responding quickly right now. Away from the computer for a bit.

Jersey Girl

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

Can you paste the full text of Gen 19 here from the translation you're using?

I'd rather paste a link (here), so you have the benefit of the footnotes as well.

[_Bryan Inks]

Homosexuality is not mentioned. In fact, the only thing it says about Sodom and Gomorrah, it mentions "an abomination". However, given the times, there were only, what? 500 some-odd abominations? Defining this particular one as homosexuality without further information is criminal.

Let me make this clear:

* I have said absolutely nothing about the sin of Sodom being homosexuality

* I have stated specifically that there is no 'sin of homosexuality' in the entire Bible

* I have urged people in this thread and one other thread to make a distinction between homosexual identity and homosexual behaviour

* In this thread I have been addressing specifically the homosexual behaviour in Genesis 19

I hope that's clear now.

Clear as crystal. My apologies for misunderstanding.

In the NIV, yes, you are correct. They did make it clearer according to their understandings. But since most Mormons don't even know there are other translations of the Bible, I kept my focus on the KJV. Which, if you read it again, is misleading. It does say exactly what you wrote and I addressed that in the original post.

As I pointed out, even in the KJV it says nothing of women and children.

The KJV actually states: KJV Genesis 19:4 "...the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter."

Does it state clearly "women and children"? No. But it does state "All of the people". It's hard to have all of the people of a city show up without having women and children "both young and old".

Besides, I addressed this. I also included the NIV verse because it falls into the same trap.

NIV Genesis 19:4 "...All the men from every part of the city of Sodom -- both young and old -- surrounded the house."

In both translations, you have the phrase "men of the city Sodom". And the Hebrew phrase used can mean that or "The people of the city Sodom".

Neither translation (KJV/NIV) can claim authority on which of the possible meanings are given, especially since the KJV does elaborate and talk about the "people". I don't think it is coincidence.

But since the KJV is irrelevant to the true meaning of the Hebrew text, and since I'm not a Mormon, and since we're trying to determine the true meaning of the Hebrew text, then the KJV is irrelevant to this discussion.

I disagree. I don't speak Hebrew. I don't have access to Hebrew texts. And if the KJV is irrelevant, so is the NIV for the exact same reason. And regardless of your Mormon-ness or lack thereof, agreeing on a common area of focus would be in our best interests, I think.

I could just as easily pull up some other translation of the Bible and demand that we use that. But most of the people who encounter this argument are familiar with the KJV, and despite the fact that several of us know how obscenely flawed it is, I believe that it is one of the most common interpretations of the Bible.

Again, I addressed this in the original post. Genesis 19 is the only place of the nearly 1000 instances of "know" in which it is not readily clear from context what the word was intended as.

Actually you claimed this in your original post, but you didn't prove it. I really don't see what's so ambiguous about the use of the word here. Lot understood it perfectly well.

Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. There is no possible way that Fortigurn could possibly know what Lot knew at the time and any comments to the state of mind or knowledge of Lot is a call for speculation.

A. His daughters were engaged to be married. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that before. There is a slight difference between "married" and "engaged to be married". . . one that I think is fairly obvious.

Where does it say they were only engaged?

My apologies again. A case of "filling in the blanks" as I was speed-reading through.

B. Even if they were planning violence, I think it is extremely misleading to assume that included rape. They were in a war zone, for love's sake. If two completely strange people walked onto a US base during war time, I know for a fact that they would be given one chance to identify themselves and then they would be shot.

Well part of this argument of yours depends on the meaning of 'yada' here, but we're already dealing with that. That aside, where does it say they were in a war zone? Bear in mind that the men walked through the gate of the city, which is where Lot also sat, and that they would not have been permitted to enter if the people at the gate didn't want them in.

Genesis 14. They were just in a war. And the verses don't state that they just brazenly walked in through the gate. It says they met Lot at the gate.

[_Bryan Inks]

Fixed the emphasis

know Hebrew "yada`yaw-dah' ":

a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow):--acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit, wot.
yda`yed-ah'

Could you provide your source please? Is this Strong's, Young's, Cruden's, or what? I'd prefer that BDB be used, for obvious reasons. I've highlighted the relevant portion in this definition.

And by "relevant" you mean "doesn't appear to apply", right?

No, by 'relevant' I mean does apply.

Did you read that list? Out of the dozens of possible applications of Ya'da, only one of them has a sexual connotation and it isn't even one of the primary definitions. (Assuming that this list is compiled in the standard method of putting the most applicable meanings first).

Yes I read the list, yes I'm aware that 'know' isn't among the primary definitions, and no that doesn't actually matter because what it shows is that this sense is within the semantic domain of the word, and that was the initial point under contention.

And I don't think that the information given is enough to justify the assumption of context.

Exactly why do you say this?

As I said, in the nearly 1000 instances of "ya'da" appearing, only a dozen or so have a sexual connotation and it blatantly obvious from the context surrounding the word as to why.

This verse is the sole exception to that.

Why do you believe that this is an exception?

Ok, maybe if I rephrase it slightly, my intent will be clearer.

Of the dozen or so instances of "ya'da" that denote sex, the context is plainly clear. "He knew her and she conceived."

In all other cases of "ya'da" it is obvious that it is denoting "knowledge" such as "He knew God walked the earth." or "He knew what the angel was showing him."

This instance in Genesis 19 does not make it absolutely clear, based on context, what purpose "know" serves. It could go either way. "I want to know who these people are." or "I want to fornicate with them."

Just because Lot assumed that it was sexual, doesn't make it so. He could have been wrong.

Does that make sense? Where I'm coming from?

To restate, I'm not trying to prove that homosexuality is or isn't a sin. I'm not trying to prove, either way, why Sodom was destroyed. I am merely putting forth another valid interpretation of the information for discussion.

[_Fortigurn]

Ok, maybe if I rephrase it slightly, my intent will be clearer.

Of the dozen or so instances of "ya'da" that denote sex, the context is plainly clear. "He knew her and she conceived."

In all other cases of "ya'da" it is obvious that it is denoting "knowledge" such as "He knew God walked the earth." or "He knew what the angel was showing him."

This instance in Genesis 19 does not make it absolutely clear, based on context, what purpose "know" serves. It could go either way. "I want to know who these people are." or "I want to fornicate with them."

Just because Lot assumed that it was sexual, doesn't make it so. He could have been wrong.

Does that make sense? Where I'm coming from?

Yes your argument makes sense, I just don't see any evidence for it. How is it that Lot could have misunderstood them? What does 'yada' mean in verse 8? Why didn't they explain that they just wanted to come in for a chat, cookies, and milk?

To restate, I'm not trying to prove that homosexuality is or isn't a sin. I'm not trying to prove, either way, why Sodom was destroyed. I am merely putting forth another valid interpretation of the information for discussion.

Yes, I understand that.

[_Fortigurn]

Clear as crystal. My apologies for misunderstanding.

Thanks, glad to have that cleared up.

Other issues:

* KJV 'all the people from every quarter' is qualified by 'the men of the city, even the men of Sodom' - no mention of women and children (why would women and children be involved in an alleged lynch mob looking for suspected spies?).

* I don't speak Hebrew any more than you do, but my point is that quoting the KJV doesn't constitute quoting the Hebrew - nor does quoting the NIV (we have to evaluate the evidence for any translation). My objection was to you quoting the KJV and treating it as if it was the Hebrew.

* Hearsay: I can know what Lot thought at the time, because we have his words

* Ok, we agree that there's no evidence Lot's daughters were only engaged

* Genesis 14: There had been a war some time before, and their enemies had been destroyed. They were not in a 'war zone' at the time that the angels came.

* I didn't say that the angels marched 'brazenly' through the gate, I said the men walked through the gate of the city, which is where Lot also sat, and that they would not have been permitted to enter if the people at the gate didn't want them in. Yes, they met Lot at the gate. Yes, they ended up in his house. Can you think of a way that Lot and the angels went from the gate to Lot's house without actually going through the gate? The fact is that they were welcomed at the gate, and permitted entry. They were not treated as spies.