the sin of sodom

from debate in another thread with rrhain, starting about here.i'd like to discuss, in particular, the use of the word "know" in genesis 19:5:

quote:

---

—-— —, -‘ — ——; —,
v'y'qreu al-lot, v'y'ameru lo, "ayeh ha-anashim asher-bau alik ha-laylah; hutzyem alinu v'nedat otem."
and they called out to lot, and said to him, "where are the people who came to you tonight? bring them out to us and we will know them."

​

Genesis 19:5

---

the question here is about "know." the traditional reading, every one that i am aware of, is that this "know" is sexual: rape. grammatically, it is essentially the same as the rather popular biblical euphemism for sex.

quote:

---

, -
v'ha-adam yada et-chavah ishto.
and the man knew eve, his wife

​

Genesis 4:1

---

now, it's important to understand the context of the story, and that involves genesis 14. sodom was just in a war with several other nation-states. sodom lost, and badly at that. lot, who lived there, was taken captive. abram rides in to the rescue, and brings lot and all the wealth and captives of sodom back to the king. the king of sodom offer abram the wealth as a reward, and abram refuses, lest the king say "i have made abram rich." this is the equivalent of spitting in the kings face. so sodom is not happy with abram in particular.considering that they had also just lost a war, and narrowly avoided abject poverty, they were also -- according to tradition -- greedy. how does that play in?

quote:

---

5. that we may know them. i.e. vent our lust upon them (Rashi, ibn Ezra, Rashbam). Nachmanides' opinion is that their purpose was to keep strangers away, being anxious to retain all the wealth of the place to themselves. Although they were wicked in many other waysm their doom was their punishment for this selfishness and their refusal to help the poor.

​

(footnotes in my chumash)

---

ezekiel gives the following reference:

quote:

---

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

​

Ezekiel 16:49

---

jesus mentions sodom in the new testament, in the context of inhospitality:

quote:

---

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

​

Matthew 10:14-15

---

wikipedia contains two quotes from flavius josephus, one mentioning xenophobia and greed:

quote:

---

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.

​

Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195

---

the other, sex:

quote:

---

And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population.

​

Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202

---

josephus is partially wrong in the second quote. it appears to not be about beauty at all. there is no indication in the text that the citizens of sodom had ever even seen the angles. it is, however, about violence. according to the talmud, sodom had a tradition of executing those who would help to poor, and punishing the poor themselves. this could well have meant death and torture for lot, lot's family, and his guests.rrhain makes the argument that this is merely tradition, a forced reading and abuse of the text through english (nevermind the only differences in the grammar are the conjugation of the verb). he argues that they were simply wary (and justifiably so), and wanted to question the visitors. they might be theives, afterall.so we are forced to look for other examples, in the bible, that clearly use the word to mean other things, in the same grammatical context. even then, it's hard to say. my hebrew teacher warned us not to say we "knew" someone, because it generally meant something else. i forget, off hand, what she told us to say instead. so let's look at other uses of "knowing" a person in the text. i'll post one, others can feel free to post more that follow the form [yada] (subject) (person), in any conjugation they can find. here's an example from judges, that spells things out a little more clearly. and has the benefit of being the same story:

quote:

---

As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying: 'Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may know him.'

​

Judges 19:22

---

in judges, a levite stays in someone's home while on a journey. the angry mob at the door wants to "know" him, so the host opts to protect, by offering his virgin daughter -- and the guest's concubine. they don't want the daughter, but they happily rape the concubine. this the story where the man is so upset he cuts his concubine up into pieces and has her sent all around the country.but it's also removed from the "revenge for abram" context, and the "fear of strangers" context. why interrogate this man? and why is that bad form to do so -- the host gets to know him, in the other sense, just fine. it describes the crowd beforehand, literally as "sons of wickedness" an idiom meaning "perverse." and why, if they're so insulted at being offered sex, do they decide to spend all night raping the man's concubine? it's also worth pointing out that the "know" presents a symmetry:

quote:

---

But the men would not hearken to him; so the man laid hold on his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning; and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

​

Judges 19:25

---

they demanded to "know" the man, and they "knew" the woman. this is not a coincidence. it's the same euphemism for the same act. it seems clear that this story -- the same story -- is totally removed from any kind of contextual doubt about its nature. and the rape actually occurs. and moreover, this is clearly the same tradition as sodom, told a little differently.so, what is the sin of sodom? do they rape the travellers who show up on their doorsteps? do they mean to just scare them away? or do they just want to get to know who these people are, and what they're doing in the city, the equivalent of being taken to the side at the airport customs line? is sex, or rather rape, a part of their inhospitality, or is simple rudeness enough?note for mods: "bible study" please. also, i like to make extra special note that the issue of homosexuality is not the topic for this thread in the slightest. any gaybashing or fundie rambling to that effect is to be considered completely off topic. this is about whether the people of sodom meant "sex" or something else, not about the genders of the guests or population, which the text in hebrew does not specify. i don't wish for this to turn into another mudslinging match; i'm only interested in honest discussion of rrhain's original claim -- that "know" in this case is not a euphemism for sex, and that the text does not have a sexual connotation in the slightest.

---

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

looks like another topic of mine is well on the way to being warnocked. in regards to judges 19, where the townspeople do indeed commit rape. here is the relevent passage, and some commentary.

quote:

---

(c) The outrage of the Gibeonites (19.22-28)
19 ²²While they were refreshing themselves, a group of people from the city, toughs, surrounded the house and began to batter on the door, shouting out to the old man, the master of the house, 'Bring out the man who has come to your house: we want to have sex with him.' ²³But the master of the house went out and said to them, 'I beg you, brothers, do not commit such an abominable action. Now that this man has entered my house, do not commit such impiety. ²⁴Look, I have a daughter who is still a virgin: I will bring her out to you. Ravish just her, do what you like to her, but do not such a vile thing to this man.' ²⁵However, the men would not listen to him. Then the levite took his concubine and led her outside and they ravished her, violating her all night until the dawn. And when dawn broke they let her go. ²⁶And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell at the gate of the house of the man where her husband was staying, and there she remained until it was light. ²⁷1n the morning her husband got up and opened the door and went out to go on his way; but he found the concubine fallen there in front of the door, with her hands on the- threshold. ²⁸He said to her, 'Get up, let us be going', but there was no reply. Then he put her on the ass and returned to his own country.

​

---

​

[22] 'Toughs': literally, 'men of the city, sons of belial (Bolillng*, 1975, 'the local hell raisers'). The term, which appears ahllill twenty-seven times in the Old Testament, almost always in combinations with a construct Jungling, 266), is of doubtful etymology and meaning. Rabbinic exegesis, followed by St Jerome, thought or beli-ol, 'without yoke' (of the torah, or of heaven), hence lawless; others of beli-yaal', 'without rising (from hell)', an allusion to Sheol, cf. Ps. 18.5 (EVV 18.4)//II Sam. 22.6; but which here, as in I Sam. 1.16; 2.12; 10.27, etc., denotes human beings who act in disregard or all laws, whether human or divine. During the intertestamental period it became the name of a demonic power, which as Beliar appearn In Qumran, the Sibylline Oracles, the Testaments of the Twelve patriarchs, the Ascension of Isaiah and also in the New Testament, II Cor. 6.15. The phrase seems to have been conflated and is perhaps the product of the combination of anashi ha-ir and anashi beni belial. In any case, the formula indicates, irrevocably, that we can expect no good from this intervention. 'Batter' and 'have sex': cf. Gen. 19.5,9. The first is a matter of 'putting shoulders to the door' with the aim of breaking it down, Driver**, 1964; in the second instance we have one of the common meanings of the root yada: it is in fact obvious that it is not just a matter of making their acquaintance: they had all the time in the world while the group had been sitting in the square. On the other hand, as I have noted, while in Gen. 19 the homosexual violence is a fundamental element, given that the three 'angels' are seen as men, here the theme quickly disappears, as the toughs are happy with the concubine, cf. 20.5. As we have seen, this is manifest proof that this narrative is secondary in comparison with Gen. 19, which, moreover, is a much earlier story.

​

[23] 'Impiety': nebalah is normally used to express 'foolishness'; however, it also appears generically for a violation of normal relationships Jungling, 279), or as a euphemism for sexual matters, cf. Gen. 34.7; Deut. 22.21; II Sam. 13.12; it dOes not, however, appear in Gen. 19.7-8a, which has only the first part of the speech. 'In my house': read el for the Hebrew al, which does not make sense.

​

[24] 'Virgin': MT adds: 'and that of his concubine' (using an anomalous form which is not repeated, cf. GesK 91d), but the phrase should be deleted, cf. v. 25: the personal pronouns here and in the following verses should therefore always be read in the singular: otah. 'Ravish': literally 'humiliate her', a euphemism. 'Do not': note in Hebrew the use of lo instead of al; the first appears only for absolute prohibitions, the second for contingent prohibitions.

​

[28] 'There was no .. ': the impersonal with G. R. Driver**, 1964; the woman was dead, as LXX and Vg are concerned to add, leaving nothing to the imagination of the reader or the audicnce.

​

J. Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary, 1981.

---

please note verse 15:

quote:

---

And they turned aside thither, to go in to lodge in Gibeah; and he went in, and sat him down in the broad place of the city; for there was no man that took them into his house to lodge.

​

Judges 19:15

---

the levite and his concubine sat in the town square for quite some time before they were taken in. had this been about interrogation, that would have been a good opportunity. this is also removed from the context of war, as in genesis 19. here, this is the act that starts the war. but in judges 19, they DO commit rape. doesn't that matter? how can you disregard that simple, obvious fact. they mean to commit an act of violence; they do commit an act of violence. you presuppose that it is somehow a simple coincidence that the "know" in demanding phase is the same "know" in the doing phase. evidently, the sin of sodom was all kinds of things. more that in the next post.

---

Great topic arach!I am not the biblical or hebrew scholar necessary to delve too deep into this topic, but I will be reading with much interest.I was initially confused by Rrhain's reluctance to admit that the people of Sodom wanted to "know" the angels in the way the bible uses that term seeing as how he seems to have read and thought about the bible alot. I think it stems from the way the story is presented by many homosexual groups. The way many gay church groups and other homosexual sites present the passage is mostly correct, meaning that they interpret the passage to mean that Sodom and Gomorrah are punished for their inhospitality, plain and simple, no sexual deviance involved. Usually, however, the way it is presented is that the word "know" is stripped of it's sexual meaning and one can take that to mean that they didn't want sex at all. I've even used that argument before, in my coming out days, before I really thought about it.The way I see it now, however (and I believe this was mentioned in the parent thread), is that the citizens of Sodom did want to rape the angels, but the "sin" was not the sex itself (hetero, homo or angelo?) but the desire to do harm to the visitors.That is the only way it makes sense. If all of the citizens were "homosexuals" then why would Lot offer his daughters (and why in the world would raping angels make them homosexual? Isn't there another term for angel-human sex?)? Why not offer himself? Also, if the "sin" is translated into just wanton sexuality, why would the citizens of Sodom refuse the virgin daughters?The sin HAS to be inhospitality (as well as greed), especially if you take into account the stories leading up to it, as you did. Sounds like alot of Republicans I know...punishing or just simply ignoring the poor and being hopelessly isolationist/anti-immigrant so that they can keep "what's theirs" while villifying homosexuals to get the people's blood up.I don't want to hijack your thread into something political, but I just had to comment on this.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

the real question is this: which came first, the sex or the myth? i think you will actually find, curiously, that the sex came first. for this, we need to look at the ancient world honestly -- the hebrews were prudes. under king josiah and the invention of deuteronomy, judah underwent a major reform, tossing out many other religions. specifically asherah (astarte) and many forms of worship that included sex. this should not be a surprise. ironically, the other popular gay-bashing verse, 1 Cor 6:9, contains a good hint. while most people are focussed on the apostle paul's condemnation of "homosexuals" (probably means pederasts), he also condemns temple prostitutes. we live in the judeo-christian where such a thing is unthinkable, and so i don't totally blame you for not thinking of it. but in the ancient world, sex was often part of worship itself. think of the orgies of the baccanalia, for instance. even judah has a few bouts with temple prostitutes:

quote:

---

Judah did what was displeasing to the LORD, and angered Him more than their fathers had done by the sins that they committed. They too built for themselves shrines, pillars, and sacred posts on ever high hill and under every leafy tree; there were also male prostitutes in the land. [Judah] imitated all the abhorent practices of the nations that the LORD had dispossessed before the Israelites.

​

I Kings 14:22-24

---

most translations even use the word "sodomites" in place of "male prostitutes," but it's not the same word in hebrew (which is why i've opted for the nJPS here, for the sake of honesty). the nJPS however lacks the sense of the hebrew for this word. it is , qadesh. it's almost the same word as qedesh or "sanctify" and qodesh or "holy." these are clearly prostitutes for religious purposes. the rest of the verse talks about "pillars" and "posts." one of the words is literally asherim. this is worship of asherah -- she is a pan-canaanite fertility goddess. fertility... sex worship. connected ideas.how precisely does this tie into sodom, you ask? well, "asherah was worshipped in sodom" is both far too obvious, and far too simplistic. and sort of a non-starter. judah and israel were about the only places she wasn't worshipped (at least in the heads of the priests anyways). some have suggested asherah as yahweh's bride (she is baal's bride elsewhere). it appears the practice of worshipping her is older than the book of kings or genesis, and the subject of kings made hold the answer:

quote:

---

The story of Lot and the Sodomites seems to be iconotropic; that is to say, based on a misreading of an ancient picture or relief. In the Hierapolis temple -- the plan and furniture of which corresponded with that of Solomon's -- a yearly holocaust and orgy was celebrated: when pederasty between male worshippers and 'Dog-priests' dressed in female garments took place, and unmarried girls acted as temple prostitutes. That these were also temple practices at Jerusalem is suggested by the reforms of King Josiah (or Hilkiah, or Shaphan), commemorated in Deuteronomy XXII and XXIII: prohibitions against the wearing of women's clothing by men, and the paying into Temple funds of 'the hire of a harlot, or the price of a Dog' -- meaning a Dog-priest. That special quarters had been assigned to Dog-priests, or Sodomites in the Temple, is stated in 2 Kings XXIII. 7. Thus a fresco showing these legitimized sexual orgies against a temple background of swirling smoke, with a white aniconic image of the Goddess Anath on one side, and a priest standing at the Temple door on the other, could later be read as a warning tale of Sodomite excesses, Lot's righteousness, his wife's metamorphosis, and the destruction of their city.

​

Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, 1983

---

it seems that the story of sodom is more indirectly a smearjob on improper use of sexuality, confused from the attacks on the local sexually immoral religions. similarly, the rest of genesis 19 is a smear on the moabites and the ammonites. is it then also coincidence that the moabites are mentioned in that very proclaimation in deuteronomy about who can and can't be in the temple? sex was tied to religion, and religion to nationality. the author of this part of genesis in one story calls the people of sodom the equivalent of "fags," the people of moab and ammon the equivalent of "inbred rednecks." these are all attacks on other religions. similar attacks are quite common elsewhere:

quote:

---

The tradition of sexual promiscuity at Sodom is paralleled by Yaqut's fOrteenth-century account of orgies at Mirbat in Southern Arabia: 'The customs there are those of the ancient Arabs. Though good people, they have rough and repulsive customs, which explain their freedom from jealousy. At night, their women go outside the town and entertain such men as are not forbidden to them [by the laws of incest], sporting with them for the greater part of the night: a man pays no heed when he sees his wife, sister, mother or father's sister in a neighbour's arms;but himself seeks some other mate and is entertained by her as though she were his wife.' But the Spanish-born editors of Sepher Hayashar may have observed similar Tuareg festivities in the Sahara.

​

(ibid.)

---

no, but it's a damned good way to slander someone. the question isn't so much about reality -- the reality is sex as part of worship -- the question is about what the author of genesis 19 meant. and he meant to say that these people were vile, and sick, and deranged, and deserved their fate in excess. and he does this principally by portraying a normal, communal sex act bent all out of proportion. but the sex part, that came first, and is very much real.it's also important to remember that lot and his family would not have been part of the standard religious orgies associated with asherah worship, as they were qualified as "righteous" (the, um, other qedesh) by god. they weren't worshipping idols -- just yahweh. this would have singled them out, in extreme, in a place where everyone worships a fertility god. they'd be the guys who never come to the party. demanding sex is then a natural literary extension of the wariness of outsiders. should visitors participate (and worship the same god) they are welcome. if they don't... well, look at judah's own policies on foriegn gods. it's probably not something that would have happened in reality, but it's certainly the origin of the literature.

---

sex, as above, is the origin of the story. but it is not the conclusion. the sex was communal fertility goddess worship, a common practice in the ancient near east.but they're not interested in getting their rocks off. they're interested in ideas of community and severely xenophobic. they didn't want sex with lot or his daughters -- they wanted to either incorporate the visitors, or scare them away. lot offering his daughters would not satisfy that desire, because it was not lots daughters they were asking for. lot and his family were already allowed in (or actually near) sodom, and they weren't so much worried about him, humiliation by abram or not. lot's been around for a while, it's the visitors that are new.

---

they are not totally wrong -- the focus of the story does seem to be inhospitality. but this is not the only thing sodom is punished for. sodom was already declared "wicked" the chapter before this event, and slated for destruction before the angels ever arrived. it was abram who begged god to spare sodom, for the case of his nephew lot. thus the angels were sent to find the righteous of sodom, and shepherd them out of harms way. that the sodoms did this was after the fact; icing on the cake so to speak.i hesitated to cite a source above that uses the word "homosexual." indeed, on today's library trip, i had to work very, very hard to find books that were not simply slander or homophobia. i've got a few more good ones up my sleeve, including a whole book on sodom, but by and large, most sources were unsubstantiated "sodomites wanted butt sex." the groups you talk about are right on another thing -- it's not about homosexuality. the word used for both "men of the city" and "men that came to you..." is anashim. it lacks the context of masculinity in and of itself. a singular ish would be a man; a singular ishah a woman. the plural nashim (a peculiar masculine looking plural, but grammatically treated as feminine) has to mean "women." but anashim is the word you would use for mixed company, "people" in general, or a group you didn't know the genders of. the story of sodom is meant to be inclusive, it was EVERYONE in the town, not just the men.what the groups are wrong about is that it's not sexual at all. it most certainly is about sex, at the very least sex-as-violence. rape. the other context, sex as part of religion, i've presented above. i'm hoping that's mostly the last word about homosexuality in this thread -- as i'm sure you are well aware, such discussion can rapidly go sour. indeed. "virgin daughters" is a generally more appealing lie (lot's daughters are married). i read some sources today that said lot offers his daughter specifically to spit in their faces, knowing they wanted men. this fails to make sense, however. why would you want to piss of an angry mob? no, lot does the brightest thing he can think to do, without sacrificing his duty as a proper host: offers his own property (his daughters) in their place.it's also important to note that in the judges 19 (as above) the villagers of gibeah do indeed rape a woman.

---

In the Judges story the man himself only says that the men intended to kill him (Judges 20:5). So it is not impossible that they did literally mean "know" - but they were lying and intended violence.It is also significant that they were prepared to use the concubine, but apparently did not use the daughter for sex. So it is possible that the Sodomites rejected Lots daughters in the same way - not because they were exclusively homosexual, but because they were interested in attacking the strangers, not residents.One other thing. The parallels between the stories seem close. Is it possible that the Sodom story was based on the Judges story ? In that case it might be that the idea that Sodom was condemned for homosexuality is based on a detail which was not part of the original story.

or that the levite was exaggerating. either reading is acceptable -- one thing is clear, they definitely meant harm and not simply interrogation. precisely. it's unclear. one of the sources i cite above makes the argument that the genesis story must have come first. but it seems to at least partially be opperating from the flawed "homosexuality" standpoint, and induces that the meaning must then have been lost. there is every indication that this might be other way around just as easily. iirc, genesis was canonized before judges, so is likely older, but they are close to the same timeframe for authorship. the best explanation is "one myth, two versions."Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

I would say that they intended harm. We cannot assume that what they said accurately reflected what they actually wanted to do. If they intended harm - as seems certain - it is certainly possible that they would hide that intent rather than openly announcing it.On the age of the stories it is certain that both used older sources. Judges may well have undergone less redaction and thus be truer to that material. And the Judges story is more likely to represent actual history - something of the sort likely happened. The whole incident is too traumatic to be plausibly regarded as pure invention.

Thanks for your research. I just had one question. I looked this up and I found that Lot did have married daughters (as is mentioned in Gen 19:14 when he warns his sons-in-law about the impending destruction of Sodom), but the text says that he "went out" to warn them suggesting that those daughters did not live with him. What word/phrase suggests that the daughters that were living with Lot were married?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

rrhain makes the argument that this is merely tradition

---

No, I didn't. I demand that you show me where I even hinted at this.As my last post directly stated: Now, if you're going to put words in my mouth, then I won't be assisting you. You can argue with yourself.

quote:

---

(nevermind the only differences in the grammar are the conjugation of the verb)

---

That's not true and you know it. Oops! Did I just bring up sex? The word "know" means "have sex" in English and since I used the word "know," that must mean I am saying you're having sex! After all, the only difference between "Adam knew his wife" and "You know it" is that the word "know" is conjugated in the past in the former and the present in the latter.The word "know" always, in all contexts, means "have sex."

quote:

---

that "know" in this case is not a euphemism for sex, and that the text does not have a sexual connotation in the slightest.

---

Let's start with a few ground rules:1) The word has more than one meaning.
2) It is inappropriate to mindlessly substitute one meaning for the other.
3) The way you figure out which meaning to use is from context.
4) Therefore, it isn't a question of "coincidence" that a word, when used twice, can mean different things in each instance. Instead, refer to point 3 above: You have to use context to determine what the word means every single time it is used.If you cannot agree to these ground rules, then there is no point in continuing. And since you seem to have no qualms about misquoting me, I don't hold much hope.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I don't read a word of Hebrew, so I can't speak to the grammar.But my reading of the Bible is that it only uses the "know" euphemism to refer to heterosexual activity. Every time it talks about men having sex with each other, it says something like "exchanging the natural purpose for the unnatural" or "defile themselves with mankind" or "lie with a man as with a woman."If, indeed, homosexuality was something the Bible authors abhorred, then it would never, ever occur to them to describe it using the same terms as (in their view) legitimate sex. If the mob in Genesis wanted to submit the strangers to homosexual rape, then surely they would have said something like "bring them out here, so that we might make women of them" or something.Nowhere in the Bible is "know" used to refer to homosexual gang-rape, or any homosexual activity, which supports the interpretation that they really do just mean "hey, bring those strangers out here so we can know who the hell they are."

Well, the story of sodom, for one. But again, we have to consider the context of the immediate situation. Lot offered his "virgin" daughters for the people to "know" them. He actually said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."If the people only wanted to know who the heck these strangers were, why the sexual connotation with regard to the daughters?I think the better interpretation of this is that this is a case of attempted rape, not attempted homosexual act. The wise men of christanity always bring this up to condemn homosexuality even though it has little to do with homosexuality and more with rape.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Well, they were not married but were going to get married.Gen 19:14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!