wmscott responds to me:
quote:
I assume you are getting all this from some book
This is a problem? That's how a lot of learning is done: By reading books. I studied the material and learned what it had to say.
quote:
well that book or what ever is dead wrong and I mean wrong.
Be specific. I quoted to you the original Hebrew. Could you please tell me where we find the reference to sexual intercourse? I even compared it to another verse from the Bible that is clearly indicative of sexual contact between Adam and Eve (since after Adam "knew" his wife, she gave birth to Seth) and asked you to show me where the context of the use of "yada" in Gen 19 is comparable to the use of "yada" in Gen 4 such that one could reasonably state that Gen 19 is talking about sex.
Where is it? Step up to the plate. You do have some understanding of Hebrew, do you not?
quote:
For starters, for your theory to be correct, everyone else would have to be wrong.
And that's impossible because of what, precisely? Remember, for centuries, the average person was not allowed to read the Bible. The mere translation of the Bible out of Latin (which it wasn't written in) and into "common" languages like English was a huge controversy. In the course of this, many people have imposed their viewpoint of what the text is "supposed" to say and since they tended to be the heads of the church, those attitudes have expanded out to the masses who don't have access to the originals or even the ability to analyze them if they did.
How good is your Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Have you even seen a copy of the texts in their "original" languages (and I put original in quotes because even the copies we have aren't the first versions but are copies of copies of transcriptions of oral traditions.)
quote:
I mean that all christian religions over the past two millenniums and the Jews for even longer before that, would have to be completely wrong on their interpretation of whole sections of the Bible.
Huh? Judaism doesn't consider the sin of Sodom to be homosexuality. It considers it to be inhospitality and pride.
quote:
We are talking about a very basic point here,
Yes, we are.
Do you seriously think that King James didn't have a say in the translation that bears his name? That he had no influence in making sure that the Bible supported the divine right of kings?
quote:
one that if you took christian religions that disagree on major issues like the Trinity, hell fire, immortality of the soul, you name it, but they would all agree on this one issue.
But they don't.
quote:
Plus you would have to add a whole list of Bible scholars and translators that all conflict with what you are saying.
Yep. It's called "bias." You read what you want to read. The text doesn't say, "have sex with them." It says, "know them." It just so happens that the verb "yada" in Hebrew can mean "have sex with," but it needs to be phrased in a very specific way. That way is not used in Gen 19:5. Therefore, one has to wonder why someone would ever translate it as "have sex with."
And notice, you don't see it translated as "have sex with" until recent times...by people who have axes to grind with regard to those who aren't heterosexual. Even the King James translates it as "know them."
quote:
There must be a basic reason why they all disagree with your interpretation, the only answer that I can see is that you are wrong.
Right. It couldn't have anything to do with expectations. "Everybody knows" that passage refers to sex so the fact that it doesn't actually say, "have sex with," simply means they were being polite. The fact that
EVERY OTHER TIME you see the phrasing used you
NEVER translate it as "have sex with" is not indicative of anything. It's just a coincidence.
quote:
Incorrect, Leviticus 18 is a listing of individual commands,
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Are you seriously saying that each verse has absolutely no connection to any other verse? The whole of Levitius 18 is about sex! No sex with your father or mother or father's wife or sister or half-sister or granddaughter (why not the grandson?) or aunt or uncle or daughter-in-law (why not son-in-law?) or sister-in-law on your brother's side (why not brother-in-law). No sex with a woman and her daughter or the woman's granddaughters (why not the grandsons?) No having sex with your wife and her sister while they're both still alive. No having sex when the woman is menstruating. No ritualistic sex.
It's all about sex.
quote:
just look at Leviticus 18:24 "'Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things," or are you going to say that the very next verse was only wrong in connection with false worship but is acceptable in itself?
I'm saying that you cannot say that it is bad because the reference is specifically to the iconic practice of false worship. Temple prostitution also included heterosexual sex. Are you saying that because temple prostitution is forbidden, that would include heterosexual sex, too? Of course not.
quote:
At Leviticus 20:13 where the prohibition against homosexuality is repeated,
And again, it is in reference to temple prostitution.
Strangely, though, there is no mention of lesbianism in Lev 20. Does the mean it's OK for women to be gay?
quote:
it also states (Leviticus 20:12) "And where a man lies down with his daughter-in-law, both of them should be put to death without fail. They have committed a violation of what is natural." Are you going to tell me it is OK for your father to have sex with your wife as long as it is not part of temple prostitution?
(*sigh*)
Does the word "context" mean anything to you? I'm not saying that the whole chapter is about temple prostitution. I'm saying that the passages in question, given the words used and the context in which they were said, was about temple prostitution. The whole point of Leviticus in general is to define the ways in which the Jews are distinguished from pagans. And one of those ways was the practice of ritualistic sex.
Question, if I were to talk about the "evangelists," what would I be talking about? Would it not be safe to assume that I am most likely referring to Protestant Christian preachers? Even though I didn't actually say "Christian," that's a pretty good bet, wouldn't you say? There is a cultural context here such that we all know what I'm talking about even though I didn't come right out and say it, right? So why are you so shocked to consider that certain turns of phrase might be in reference to a specific practice?
You seem to have a very black-or-white, all-or-nothing attitude. But at the same time, you have a hard time maintaining it consistently. You started off by saying that Lev 18:22 is absolutely unconnected to anything else and now you are arguing that all of the verses of Lev 20 are connected to each other. Well, which is it? Do verses get to be connected together or do they remain completely independent?
quote:
Notice the use of the word natural again.
Indeed. And since homosexuality occurs in nature, one wonders what is "unnatural" about it. Are you claiming that dogs deliberately defy the will of god? Or are they possessed by devils? Why would two dogs of the same sex regularly have sex with each other to the exclusion of having sex with dogs of the opposite sex?
quote:
You could probably find an analogy for this in the animals, would that make it OK?
Excuse me, but you are the one claiming that "natural" is OK. Therefore, if we can determine that homosexuality is "natural," then by your own logic, it must be "OK."
quote:
There is nowhere in the Bible that a temple is even mentioned as being in Sodom.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Because the Bible doesn't talk about any temples in Sodom, that means they didn't have any?
THAT is your argument? Jude has to be talking about homosexuality because it doesn't say anything about pagan rituals?
quote:
If that was the 'real' meaning, it would certainly have been at least mentioned.
No, that's my argument to
you. If the passage had meant homosexuality, it would certainly have been at least mentioned. It wasn't, so what makes you think it means that?
quote:
While what we do have in Jude 7, is the use of the Greek word porneia which basically refers to sex outside of marriage, and the phrase 'flesh for unnatural use' which older bibles sometimes render as 'strange flesh' and modern Bibles render more clearly as relating to homosexual acts and other sexual perversions.
Ahem. You don't see the problem here? "Modern Bibles"? Who wrote these "modern Bibles"? Oh, that's right...people who have axes to grind against gay people. Don't you think that might have a teensy weensy bit of effect upon their attitude toward certain passages?
Take, for example, the notorious NIV. They deliberately rewrote the Bible to take care of "problems in the text."
quote:
In none of these translations or any translation for that matter, is there any mention of this sexual misconduct being done in connection with temple prostitution.
And in none of those translations, or any translation for that matter, is there any mention of this sexual misconduct being homosexuality.
So why are you so sure that it has to be about homosexual sex rather than something else? Especially since the turns of phrase used are typically those that are associated with discussions about pagan rituals? Especially since there is no such thing as the concept of "homosexuality" as we understand it at the time?
quote:
In giving the reasons for the destruction of Sodom, the sexual misconduct is listed at Jude 7 as the reason the citys were destroyed,
Perhaps. But where is the indication that it was homosexual sexual misconduct? There's nothing in Jude 1 that says it was and Gen 19 is quite clear that the crowd wasn't looking for sex at all and, in fact, were outrageously offended when Lot tried to buy them off with sex. So while we might say that Sodom had some issues regarding sex and morality, there is no indication that homosexuality was rampant there.
quote:
According to Jude, the reason Sodom was destroyed was for the rampant immorality and sexual perversions.
But where's the reference to homosexuality?
quote:
And when the FBI surrounds the house, they bring their young boys with them.
Huh? Now you're saying that because
the entire town showed up, that means they were pedophiles as well? Oh, that's right...homosexuality equal pedophilia, right?
quote:
Why did the boys come but not one woman was in the crowd,
Um, they
did come. Why are you selectively reading the text? Here's the whole passage
Genesis 19:4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Now tell me what "all the people from every quarter" might possibly mean?
quote:
And if they truly only wanted to know who the two strangers were, why didn't they ask them when they were in the city gates earlier, the important men of the town generally sat in the gates.
(*blink!*)
You didn't just say that, did you?
Did you even read the chapter?
Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
The reason why is because
LOT was at the gates and
LOT brought them in.
By your logic, if these people were going to rape the angels, why didn't they rape them at the city gates?
quote:
That was where Lot met the angels, and talked to them, if the leading men of the city wanted to ask them anything, they could have easily done so right on the spot.
(*blink!)
You did not just say that, did you?
Didn't you read your own sentence? That's where Lot met the angels. It was
LOT at the gates. The reason why the angels weren't questioned at the gates is because
LOT was the one at the gates.
quote:
You are also goofing up here too, it seems like you are merely trolling when you see a sexual context on the part of Lot's offer of his daughters, but don't see one on the part of the men of Sodom.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Did you bother to read the chapter?
Genesis 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
Don't you see the point? "He will needs be a judge." What do you think that means? The mob comes to interrogate the strangers. Lot tells them not to and tries to distract them with sex. They are highly insulted by this and are now even more agitated than they were before because now it seems that they have a traitor in their midst...and Abraham's relative, at that (the Bible can't figure out exactly what the relationship is between Lot and Abraham.)
quote:
Like I stated above in my post to Crashfrog, if by your crazy logic, the men of Sodom were only asking to talk to the two men, then Lot must have been merely saying don't bother my tried guests, talk to my daughters instead who never get to talk to men.
Huh? Once again, you've got to look at the actual text:
Genesis 19:8: hi.ne-na li she.tei va.not a.sher lo-yad.u ish o.tsi.a-na et.hen a.lei.khem va.a.su la.hen ka.tov be.ei.nei.khem rak la.a.na.shim ha.el al-ta.a.su da.var ki-al-ken ba.u be.tsel ko.ra.ti:
Behold now, I have two daughters that 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; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'
The phrase you are looking for is "lo-yadu ish" for "not known man." That is the phrasing used when someone is using "yada" to talk about sex. Again, compare to Genesis 4:
Genesis 4:1: ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-a.do.nai:
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'
Again, we see "yada ishto." That's the way you phrase "yada" to mean sex. But look at Lot's statement:
Genesis 19:5: va.yik.re.u el-lot va.yom.ru lo a.ye ha.a.na.shim a.sher-ba.u e.lei.kha ha.lai.la ho.tsi.em e.lei.nu ve.ned.a o.tam:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'
Where is the phrasing that indicates the mob is talking about sex?
quote:
Animals are not intelligent and have no free will as man does, so they can not willfully work against God. Gay animals? or just observation basis. Just confused animals, they don't know any better, we do.
Huh? "Confused"? How can they be confused? You just said they don't have "free will." So how can they possibly be confused? Why would we find animals that stubbornly refuse to have sex with members of the opposite sex? Why do we find birds that mate for life who will take eggs from other nests or find abandoned eggs and have the two pairbonded males hatch them and raise them? These are "confused" animals? How could they possibly be confused?
quote:
They also eat their young, commit incest, and eat their own poop, do you wish to justify any of that behaviour as being fine for humans too?
I never said it did. I'm merely pointing out that your claim of it being "unnatural" isn't justified. Your claim was that it wasn't found in nature because it was bad. Well, it is found in nature. That doesn't necessarily make it good, but it does mean that it isn't unnatural.
So make up your mind. Is "natural" good or bad?
quote:
I doubt that Paul made up the word "arsenokoitai,"
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Have you done any research on this at all? Paul made up this word. It appears nowhere else in any ancient Greek text. The only place it appears is in the Bible and there it shows up exactly twice.
quote:
the meaning is:
733 arsenokoites-one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite
And this meaning is wrong. The word literally means "male temple prostitute" as it is a compound word of "arsen" for "male" and "koitai" for "temple prostitute."
quote:
Now even if Paul or somebody else made up the word, the word is made up from two base words; (730 arrhen- a male) and (2845 koite-cohabitation or sexual intercourse) which gives the meaning of a male who has intercourse with another male, a homosexual.
No, not "cohabitation." "Prostitute." Technically, "couch," but that's a slang term. It is of the exact same concept as the Greek words "arsenomorphos." If Paul had meant for the word to be reflexively referring to the prefix, he would have used "arren" rather than "arsen."
quote:
So even merely putting the two root words together gives the same meaning that is given for the word as a whole, plus even a reference to a 'sodomite', how much plainer could it be?
It would help if you knew Greek.
Do you?
quote:
As for your 'theory' that Paul really meant male temple prostitutes, the Greek word 'malakos' or prostitute appears in the verse at 1 Corinthians 6:9 but appears ahead of the term 'arsenokoites' and is separated by the Greek word rendered 'nor' making it a separate offense.
Yes. Why is this a problem? Not the prostitutes nor the male prostitutes. Why is this problematic?
quote:
In both verses Paul is discussing sinful conduct, there is no mention in ether chapter of false temple worship or temple male prostitutes, that subject wouldn't even make sense if the term 'male temple prostitute' was pasted into the verse.
Incorrect. Why do you think the verse translates so bizarrely in typical translations? Because they're trying to make it sound like it's referring to homosexuality when it doesn't.
And once again, you seem to think that because the word "temple" doesn't appear, that means that isn't the point. Are you seriously saying that if I were to talk about "evangelists," I wouldn't be talking about Christians because I didn't use the word "Christian"?
quote:
As for your argument that if it fits, it is natural and is OK, the same argument can be, and has been used by child molesters to justify their actions.
Huh? Have you see the physical damage that happens during rape? That's because it doesn't fit. People who have anal sex, on the other hand, don't wind up damaged. Don't tell me you believed Cameron and his mythic "gay bowel syndrome." There is no such thing.
quote:
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.
I never said you should.
What I said was that those who claim "it doesn't fit" are clearly wrong. It obviously does fit or people would be physically incapable of engaging in it. They would suffer physical damage if they tried. Since they are capable of doing so and emerge from the experience completely unscathed, it is quite clear to all but the most obstinate observer that it does fit.
quote:
You can stick your finger or whatever, in a light socket, do you want to argue that is 'Natural' and is the thing to do too?
Huh? When did we find light sockets in the wild?
quote:
You have become 'branded' or burned in your conscience so that it has become insensitive or burned out, so that you no longer have an accurate feeling for what is right or wrong. You have lost your moral compass and have been mislead by "teachings of demons".
I love this. This is followed by:
quote:
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
Yeah, right. "Sincerely." You condemn me as a psychotic and then try to get all polite.
I most certainly have not lost my moral compass. You're pegging it to the max.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
