|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 | |||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Yeah, Solomon's stuff is great.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4180 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yeah... have tyou ever looked at the table of contents in your bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i suppose i should actually explain some things that you seem to have missed. let's start with what the books are.
tanakh (holy scriptures/"ot")torah - the law (5 books of moses) nevi'im - the prophets ketuvim - writings. talmud - jewish oral law. (interpretation) midrashim - opinions by various independent rabbis (interpretation) qabala - jewish mysticism. (date and validity disputed) targums - aramaic translations of the bible dating to around the time of christ now you'll notice above, most of those quotes are midrashim. one is from the talmud. and one is from a secular work, by flavius josephus circa 100 ad. now, let's look at your issues:
The first question is how Lot gets into Sodom genesis 14.
the second question is how the angels get in as far as the market place, and are only suibsequently attacked. genesis 19:1.
The third is why this exercise of power is construed as a hospitality issue. because they try to violate lot's duty as a host.
You even highlighted "charity", as if hospitality and charity are the same thing. in the context of foriegners at the city gate, in need of a place to stay, they are. however, this might not even be the point as the angels may not have been disguised, and lot had to insist on them staying at his place. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-22-2005 11:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6275 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
you know that page is a joke, right? More out of curiousity than wanting to get involved in the argument - would you expand on that a bit? How do we know to take Song of Solomon as a "joke"? Are there other books of the Bible that are "jokes"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Yeah, Solomon's stuff is great. i suspect that attributing it to solomon is probably an error. even in most bibles it's called "song of songs". the "by line" is a later addition, and is sometimes read "concerning solomon" and not "by solomon" much like "a psalm of david" does not neccessarily mean that david wrote it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i knew i should have fixed that. she changed her post. originally, it was linking back to an earlier post i made in this thread, where i including the following link:
Oral Sex According to the Word of God *THAT* page is a joke. song of songs i suspect is very serious. but there are indeed jokes in the bible. lots of puns. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-22-2005 12:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Point taken...I have to confess my knowledge is far short of anything I've seen you post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
eh, i sometimes have a little difficulting citing sources here though. i'm just reporting what i've learned in class.
and i must admit, i'm not real familiar with solomon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6500 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
To all concerned, I am making a last post on this thread, demands on my time will keep me too busy to post again until after April 15th.
I would like to restate that homosexuality is a choice, as shown by scientific studies and this scripture from the Bible. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) "What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." Here right in the Bible we have an inspired record that, people who had been homosexuals, had with the help of the holy spirit, had changed and were no longer homosexuals. The reason for why they had to make the change is also clearly stated, if they didn't, they would not inherit the kingdom. To gain God's approval, a person must stop doing what God considers wrong. (Duh!) Some on this board have foolishly attempted to say that in the above verse that the word translated as "men who lie with men" should really be translated as 'male temple prostitute' or 'men who lay with boys' which would restrict Paul's condemnation to certain homosexual situations instead of homosexuality in general. Their arguments of course failed because they had no merit, they were simply wrong. As shown by the fact that nearly all modern Bible translations render the term as 'homosexual' or an equivalent phrase. The word twisting argument also fails due to the following scripture were Paul didn't even use the Greek word in question, but instead spelled out 'same sex acts' and condemned them. (Romans 1:24-27) "Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." Paul clearly stated that such acts were "contrary to nature" or unnatural and "obscene". Those who persist is such conduct will receive the "full recompense" "for their error." And to keep any heterosexuals form getting too smug, those who engage in any sexual activity outside of marriage are listed at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 right along side the homosexuals as not inheriting the kingdom. To inherit the kingdom far more than merely not doing bad is required, and even being a person of good principles and having great knowledge of God is not enough by itself, or we would be like the slave who buried his master's money and did nothing with it. (Matthew 25:14-30) " . . . But the one that received just one went off, and dug in the ground and hid the silver money of his master. "After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. . . . his master said to him, 'Wicked and sluggish slave, . . . throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.'" Far more than merely being a "good person" is required if we wish to have God's favor, so don't let any feel smug thinking that they are righteous just because they are not a homosexual. To serve God we actually have to serve him, which of course requires actual actions. but that is another topic. I see that my pointing out the fact that being gay is a choice, and that the Bible condemns all sex acts outside of marriage (not going to get into the issue of marital oral & anal sex, since that has to be inferred by deducing general biblical principles.) has raised the blood pressure of a few. Which is to be expected since those facts are in conflict with what some people want to believe. There is no point in my arguing in post after post that the sky is blue, since in the end, people believe what they want to believe. The evidence I have presented speaks for it self, the scriptures are clear and to the point. Those who wish to ignore them will do so any way, regardless of what I could post in a hundred more posts. So since the evidence has been presented, it is pointless to engage in an endless debate with those who simply don't want to accept it no matter what. Everyone is free to live their own life, but in the end we all have to answer for our actions. (Romans 14:12) "each of us will render an account for himself to God." (Matthew 12:36-37) "I tell YOU that every unprofitable saying that men speak, they will render an account concerning it on Judgment Day; for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned." Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
wmscott writes:
quote: We can take it up then if you like.
quote: I disagree. Those studies showed nothing of the sort. At most, they showed it is possible to coerce feeble-minded people into rejecting their sexuality for some indeterminate brief period of time.
quote: The bible is a collection of ancient fairy stories, it can in no way be used as evidence for anything, except perhaps that ancient people were quite imaginitive.
quote: You seem to have a desperate need to believe that that's what the bible says, but you've made nothing even close to a convincing case. You seem to feel that everyone else should believe all of this fairy nonsense simply because you do.
quote: Even if I did buy all of this make-believe silliness, the prospect of inheriting the same kingdom that people like you are going to inherit is hardly enticing.
quote: Why would anyone care whether your fairy god approves of them? Hell, in the very chapter of genesis that is the basis of this thread we have this fairy god making a hero of a man who tries to pimp out his virgin daughters. Why would anyone want the approval of a perverted deity like that?
quote: It's also quite clear from other passages that Paul was the sort of man who approved of slavery and disapproved of women's rights. Just the sort of guy your fairy god would love, no doubt, but not the sort of man I'd look to for any kind of guidance. You see, I don't approve of slavery and I do approve of women's rights.
quote: You keep saying that, but you haven't come anywhere close to proving it. Of course, the fact that you believe in silly fairy stories means that you don't have to prove your assertions at this forum, so I suppose you're free to keep citing this one as fact even though it clearly is not. But you should be warned that doing so probably doesn't help you in your so-far futile quest to present yourself as a reasonable, thoughtful person. I may have gone a bit far in calling you stupid earlier after you made the false, unfair and inflammatory comment that gays don't take responsibility for their actions, a statement which actually displays your own irresponsibility. I apologize for that, but it is still quite obvious that you are not reasonable when you continue to engage in such sophistry.
quote: What evidence? That study that showed that people could be bullied into temporarily squelching their sexuality? What does that evidence? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Some on this board have foolishly attempted to say that in the above verse that the word translated as "men who lie with men" should really be translated as 'male temple prostitute' or 'men who lay with boys' which would restrict Paul's condemnation to certain homosexual situations instead of homosexuality in general. Their arguments of course failed because they had no merit, they were simply wrong. yes. that was me. my evidence for that matter is that every other usage of the word OUTSIDE THE BIBLE is applied to an adult man and a young boy. every other use. and no, it doesn't restrict anything. i'm well aware paul condemns homosexuality. i think the point of that may have been the modern equivalent of statutory rape: taking advantage of people not yet old enough to make up their own minds responsibly.
As shown by the fact that nearly all modern Bible translations render the term as 'homosexual' or an equivalent phrase. consider the following verse:
quote: 99% of all translations i've looked at render this as "Red Sea." wanna look at a map for a second and tell me where the gulf of aqaba stops and the red sea starts? little preposterous for moses to cross the gulf, let alone the sea. he'd have to go 300 miles -- on foot -- out of his way, cross more than a hundred miles of sea, and end up in saudi arabia, not sinai. why bring this up? the bible doesn't say "Red Sea." it says "sea of reeds." somebody made a typo back in 1611. in this case, they rendered, get this, an egyptian word wrong. here we have some of the only validation that the hebrew might have been egypt, and they got it confused. when modern translators run into this, they STILL get confused. so what do they do? open up their other translations. oh, everyone else has it that, must be right. sorry, but translators do not always know what they're doing, and here we have an instance where they have consistently gotten a word wrong for at least 400 years. in almost every translation. only the jps has it right. want another confirmation? look at the religious bias in the translations of arsenokoites. suppose we ignore the context, and we look at the word itself. man-couch. all it means, basically, is "lays with men."
quote: where'd the defile come from?
quote: where'd they got sodom from?
quote: where'd the abuse aspect come from?
quote: i'll allow it for now. now, let's look at some translations that DO NOT translate it with any connotation of homosexuality, or where homosexuality is not the key issue, since you insist they don't exist. The Latin Vulgate: masculorum concubitores. (paid for male sex slaves [of men])Louis Segond (1910): les infames (the infamous) Goodspeed Bible (1951): given to unnatural vice Jerusalem Bible (1955): people with infamous habits Phillips (1958): pervert Jerusalem Bible (1968): child molesters Revised Standard Version (1971): sexual perverts. now, all but TWO of those are more modern than your nwt (1949).
Paul clearly stated that such acts were "contrary to nature" or unnatural and "obscene". paul also says that it's against nature for men to have long hair. jesus was an orthodox jew 2000 years ago: he had long hair. it's actually against the bible to cut your hair. now, one of those is full of it. which one do you think? paul, leviticus, or jesus?
and that the Bible condemns all sex acts outside of marriage (not going to get into the issue of marital oral & anal sex, since that has to be inferred by deducing general biblical principles.) two questions. 1. have you seen Anal Sex According to the Word of God ? 2. if gay marriage is allowed, is homosexual relations still bad, considering paul's point was sex out of wedlock? now, back to the point at the beginning.
To gain God's approval, a person must stop doing what God considers wrong. (Duh!) quote: do you shave? cut your hair? you should stop, otherwise you'll never gain god's approval.
quote: got any tatoos or piercings? those are gonna have to go too. otherwise, you'll never gain god's approval.
quote: do you work saturdays? you should stop that, otherwise you'll never gain god's approval.
quote: eat cheese on your sandwich today? better not do that, or you'll never gain god's approval.
quote: was that a ham and cheese sandwich? maybe a bacon cheeseburger? better not have any of those either, or you'll never gain god's approval.
quote: do hug your wife when she's having her period? better not do that. you'll never gain god's approval. oh, but you say, homosexuality is an ABOMINATION. alright, bring on the abominations.
quote: well, that pretty much screws red lobster. eat there, and you're going to hell.
quote: kfc's out too. and i certainly hope you didn't eat turkey last tahnksgiving, otherwise, you're going to hell.
quote: don't touch cockroaches. or you're going to hell.
quote: leave your leftovers in the fridge too long? you're going to hell. tell me, sinner, are you right with god? or do you persist in your sin? This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-24-2005 02:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: ... contradicts the claim the claim that Sodomites were preying on passers by, and thus violated hospitality. Please stick to your own argument, or at least indicate which variant of your rapidly changing story you want addressed.
quote: ... ALSO contradicts the claim that the Sodomites are preying on passers by, becuase the angels walk up unmolested. Once again you keep citing stuff that is CONTRARY to your own argument.
quote: ... despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to think that they HAVE any such obligation towards Lot. there is absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever; it is wholly out of place in the setting. Can you provide any evidence at all which supports this interpretation?
quote: No, nonsense. What evidence do you have for this claim? Travellers had NO right to expect protection from anyone; they were on their own. And they were doing exactly what travellers DO have the right to do, which is take up residence in the city square. If the Sodomites were being bad to travellars, why did they let them in the city gate in the first place? Once again this makes no sense. This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-24-2005 04:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes. Have you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Then you have completely missed the point. Where are the external examples of similar myths? Eh? I'm still waiting. But you cannot produce any becuase there are not any. I don't consider analysis of Jewish Religion by Jews, oir christian religion by christians, to be free of self-serving bias. Thats exactly whay I am looking for material unrelated to Sodom specifically to test the validity of your claims.
quote: You're an arrogant fucker for someone who's claims have been consistently dismantled. I can and will take the same stance regarding Jewish redactions of the Torah or Talmud as I take with christians. It remains the case that your claims are wholly unsupported. There is no evidence for the story of Sodom being "about hospitality" in any degree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1596 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
... contradicts the claim the claim that Sodomites were preying on passers by, and thus violated hospitality. Please stick to your own argument, or at least indicate which variant of your rapidly changing story you want addressed. how? abram clobbers their enemies on account of lot. so they's gonna be nice to lot for a while
... ALSO contradicts the claim that the Sodomites are preying on passers by, becuase the angels walk up unmolested. Once again you keep citing stuff that is CONTRARY to your own argument. do you make this stuff up? where'd you get "passers by" from, exactly? hmm? visitors. foriegners. people from out of town. who, like, actually come into their city. not just walk by.
... despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to think that they HAVE any such obligation towards Lot. no, that's not what i said at all. their CRIME is that they have no such obligation to respect lot's duty. that's accusation the text is making. lot has the duty, and i think you will agree to that. they attempt to get in his way.
there is absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever; it is wholly out of place in the setting. Can you provide any evidence at all which supports this interpretation? and yet 600 years later (after genesis's final redaction), josephus includes that in his list of sins. tell me, at what point do teh anachronism and actual data conflict? cause that jesus line drives it back another 100 years. and ezekiel drive it back even further. and considering that the talmud is the mishna of the oral law, it's traditions are actually MUCH older than the 200 ad text. so tell me, at what point will you just have to give up and accept that all the other writing of period simply disagrees with your incorrect assesment of the people?
No, nonsense. What evidence do you have for this claim? Travellers had NO right to expect protection from anyone; they were on their own. And they were doing exactly what travellers DO have the right to do, which is take up residence in the city square. If the Sodomites were being bad to travellars, why did they let them in the city gate in the first place? hi. reading comprehension time again. genesis 19:1. LOT MEETS THEM. he's watching the city gate, for some reason. he gets to them before anyone else. in fact, a reasonable reading would be that he meets to prevent such a conflict.
Once again this makes no sense. only because you apparently can't read.
Then you have completely missed the point. Where are the external examples of similar myths? Eh? I'm still waiting. But you cannot produce any becuase there are not any. what happened to city in baucis? look, the point is not even that. you just don't seem to get this. sure, the fact it's collective is unusual. it's not that that has in common with other myths (although some do have similar aspects). it's the setup. it's setup like a hospitality myth. knock knock.who's there? ...to get to the other side. doesn't matter if the punch line is another kind of joke, it's still a knock knock joke. and if i told you that joke, and said "knock knock" you'd say "who's there?" jokes and myths actually have a lot in common: mnemonic devices. now, you asked for a list of myths having similar traits. i listed myths with similar setups. you asked for extra biblical literature. i gave you literature that's damned near contemporary that reads it my way. you're arguing against 2000 years of jewish opinion, and insisting that they didn't interpret it that way.
I don't consider analysis of Jewish Religion by Jews, oir christian religion by christians, to be free of self-serving bias. Thats exactly whay I am looking for material unrelated to Sodom specifically to test the validity of your claims. no. that's completely invalid. we're looking at interpretation BY THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT. understand? i don't care if you think their interpretation is right or wrong. i don't care if it IS right or wrong. you're insisting that such an idea did not exist when people wrote the story. and i'm proving that it certainly did within the same time frame you were off by: 600 years.
You're an arrogant fucker for someone who's claims have been consistently dismantled. wanna take a poll? you've been proven wrong on the existance of an identical myth, and you refuse to accept it. you've been proven wrong on the fact that hospitality or violations of host-guest agreements lead to destruction of whole groups in other literature, and you refuse to accept it. you've been proven wrong on the existance of similar myths, considering that gen 19 is setup like a hospitality myth, and you refuse to accept it. you've been proven wrong on the basis that is the mainstream academic opinion, and has been for the last 2000 years, as indicated in the talmud, midrashim, and even the secular work of josephus. and you refuse to accept it. and more over, you proved that you have absolutely NO knowlegde of what you're talking about by continually misrepresenting the timeframe of the story's authorship (and therefor it's societal context that you keep harping on about). you've also proven you don't even know what what the torah is, let alone that the talmud, midrashim, and josephus's antiquities are not in the bible. in fact, josephus isn't even a religious work. simply put, you're completely ignorant of the topic. now, i'm sorry i called you a name. but you honestly must have been living in a cave for your entire life to not know what the torah is. i'm not arrogant, i just know what i'm talking about. and you do not.
I can and will take the same stance regarding Jewish redactions of the Torah or Talmud as I take with christians. be my guest, unless that stance is "they don't exist." the talmud is CLEARLY literary interpretation of the torah. it's basically a record of people sitting around talking about it, like we are here. sometimes, it's even as heated. quoting the talmud is not the ultimate authority of anything, it's one rabbi's opinions, followed by another. and they almost never agree. and the midrashim are about the same. so take any attitude you want about it, it's the issue. it does however show that that reading of the story is atleast 1800 years old, and probably much older. and that's all i had to show.
There is no evidence for the story of Sodom being "about hospitality" in any degree. please. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-24-2005 07:35 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024