DiscussMormonism.com

On another forum I participate in, we were discussing Homosexuality as found in the Bible.

Time and again, we hear that Sodom and Gahmora were destroyed because they were gay.

The specific example that is always trotted out to "prove" this is the story in Genesis 19, in which two angels visit Lot in Sodom and Lot ends up offering his virgin daughters to a mob that gathers in order to spare the angels being ass-raped.

But are there other interpretations of the information given?

I think there are.

Sodom comes from the Hebrew word "S'dom" which translates as "burnt". Gomorrah comes from "Amorah" which translates into "a ruined heap".

Both appear to be names assigned after the fact, as descriptions.

Also, according to Genesis 18, there were 4 cities that were to be destroyed, not just the two.

Also, who is it that made up the mob in Sodom?

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."

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

Problems that I see with this: Ambiguity of the KJV transation of the hebrew.

According to Gen. 19:4 (as quoted above), the first part says that it is all of the men. The second part clearly states that everyone in the city came.

Now, if you were intending a gay orgy, why would you bring the wife and kids?

Another problem is the Hebrew phrase itself.

The Hebrew phrase used here (anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom.) can be used in a dual nature.

Possible Meaning 1: "men of the city, even the men of Sodom."

Possible Meaning 2: "the people of the city, the people of Sodom."

Further on, we have the word "Ya'da".

KJV Genesis 19:5 "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

NIV Genesis 19:5 "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."

Problems with this: First. The hebrew word for "know" is Ya'da. This word appears nearly 1000 times in the Bible. Out of all of these references, in only a dozen (roughly) does Ya'da take on the sexual connotation.

Also, in those dozen or so places, it is quite clear from the subject that they are talking about sex. "A women is pregnant because of the knowing" or "A man and a woman know each other to conceive."

With that fact in mind, it is only in this one instance of Genesis 19 that there is any ambiguity in the meaning, which does leave, I think, several different interpretations.

The fact that Sodom had recently been involved in war and was in a state of high alert (Genesis 14) definetely adds some weight to the interpretation that the people of Sodom wanted to ensure the angels were not spies.

Further problems with the assumption of homosexuality being a problem: In the Bible, it states that part of why the cities were destroyed was because of their refusal to take care of widows and orphans. Now, if all of the men of Sodom were gay (because all of the Men came to Lot's house to rape the angels). . . where did the widows and orphans come from?

If Lot lived in Sodom and knew that all the men were gay, why would he even bother offering his virginal daughters to these men? Their gay, right? As in homosexual butt-seks? What part of "I love Delta Iota Kappa" is hard to understand?

Also, Lot's daughters were engaged to be married to men from Sodom. Why get married to a woman if you are gay?

Can you see why I have a problem with the carte blanche translation of homosexual rape as being the definitive reason for the situation? Do you have an alternate interpretation?

Bryan,

for what it's worth, I agree with you that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. People are choosing to read into the passages what isn't represented in the words. I'll be glad to contribute my own assessment of the passages in question later. Also, if you're interested in picking apart Leviticus regarding the same topic, and choose to begin a thread on that, I would participate in that.

Jersey Girl

Briefly:

* The homosexual behaviour of the Sodomites was not the only reason for their destruction, but it was certainly one reason among other evils. This is not a specific condemnation of 'gays', but it is a specific condemnation of homosexual behaviour (why people cannot draw a distinction between these two, I do not know).

* You've missed the point of Genesis 19:5 - it isn't saying 'All the men, no wait, all the men, women and children as well'. The phrase 'both young and old' qualifies 'All the men'. Only the men came, and it wasn't necessarily every single man in Sodom.

* There's no ambiguity in the phrase 'that we may know them'. The meaning 'have sex with' is the only meaning within the semantic range of the word which makes sense in this context. It doesn't say 'So we can get to know them', or 'So we can find out if they're spies', and Lot clearly interpreted their words as a reference to aberrant sexual behaviour.

* 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).

Jersey Girl wrote:Bryan,

for what it's worth, I agree with you that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality.

There is no such thing, in the entire Bible, as 'the sin of homosexuality'. People here are failing to distinguish between homosexual identity and homosexual behaviour. I made this point in the thread with the poll about homosexuality, which was flawed for the same reason.

Fortigurn

* The homosexual behaviour of the Sodomites was not the only reason for their destruction, but it was certainly one reason among other evils. This is not a specific condemnation of 'gays', but it is a specific condemnation of homosexual behaviour (why people cannot draw a distinction between these two, I do not know).

I'd like you to quote chapter and verse in order to demonstrate "the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites".

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl wrote:I'd like you to quote chapter and verse in order to demonstrate "the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites".

Can we start with Genesis 19:5?

Fortigurn,

I'm working on copying comments I've made elsewhere on this topic. Give me some time. Yes, start anywhere you wish. I do think it would be best to stick with Sodom/Genesis and not delve into Leviticus. I think that Leviticus would warrant it's own separate thread. Just my 2 cents.

Jersey Girl

Okay, Fortigurn, I'm ready whenever you are. I claim no expertise whatsoever in this but I LOVE knocking these passages around!

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl wrote:Fortigurn,

I'm working on copying comments I've made elsewhere on this topic. Give me some time. Yes, start anywhere you wish. I do think it would be best to stick with Sodom/Genesis and not delve into Leviticus. I think that Leviticus would warrant it's own separate thread. Just my 2 cents.

Take your time by all means, there's no rush. I don't see the need to get into Leviticus either, as yet. I'm basically interested in seeing the evidence that Genesis 19:5 doesn't refer to homosexual acts (specifically, that the word translated 'know' here doesn't refer to sexual intercourse). I'm wondering if you're going to present me with the usual arguments, or something new.

Jersey Girl wrote:Okay, Fortigurn, I'm ready whenever you are. I claim no expertise whatsoever in this but I LOVE knocking these passages around!

See my post above. I'm all agog to learn that 'Adam became aware of his wife' and that she spontaneously gave birth as a result.