To all my very patient friends out there thank for your support here. Over many threads I have argued and posted on what various indivdual versus in the bible say. To put it all together I decided to create it's own topic thread so it could be referred back to in the future. For those of you who are interested here you go...for those of you who couldn't care less....nothing to see here keep moving. LOL (I'm not trying to create a flame war or right vs. wrong with this thread...simply if you are interested in another viewpoint regarding this great. If you don't want to consider it and feel it's simply wrong...fine...you are entitled to your opinion.)
Genesis 19: 1-28 - New World Translation
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where certain sex acts have become referred to as "Sodomy". The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: "Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: 'Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must accept the fact that the entire city consisted of homosexuals. If we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising "I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten" (verse 33). God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten "righteous men" could be found I the city. If we are to accept the Watchtower's logic, this would mean that the "righteous men" referred to were heterosexuals. At this point, we need to ask ourselves: What would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual? The obvious answer is: Impossible.
If homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is 'enowsh which, literally translated, means "mortal".
This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
The passage translated as "Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them" needs further examination as well. Other Bible translations read "so that we may know them". The Hebrew word herewith translated as "have intercourse", or "know" is yada.
This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity. The correct translation, therefore, should be rendered something to the effect of: "Where are the mortals who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them."
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey? Two verses elsewhere in the Bible sum up the story this way: "Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]" - Ezekiel 16: 49, 50. It is commonly assumed that the "detestable thing" referred to in this passage is homosexuality. In fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow'ebah, which translated literally means "to commit idol worship".
This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: "Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes." One must ask: If Lot's house was surrounded by homosexuals, why would he offer the mob women? Note that these women were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: "and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come". This corroborates Ezekiel's summation, once again showing that these were "ungodly persons", in other words, idolaters, not worshippers of the true God.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is a condemnation of idol worshippers, a greedy and inhospitable society. The judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
The message was clear to the ancient Israelites: semen was to be used for one purpose alone - procreation. Spilled semen, whether by masturbation, anal penetration, or homosexuality, was not to be tolerated. It was a "numbers game". One of the Bible's earliest edicts, it's theme repeated through the Old Testament, was to "be fruitful and multiply". Many strict regulations were imposed on the ancient Israelites. The "chosen ones of God" understood each of these regulations to be equally important. In the Greek scriptures, James points this fact out by stating: "For whoever observes all the law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all." Watchtower publications, however, selectively cite the two scriptures in Leviticus as a condemnation of homosexuality, overlooking James' words which state, in essence, that if you've broken just one of the laws, you've broken them all. Leviticus 19:27 condemns haircuts and shaving. Have you ever seen a long-haired, bearded Jehovah's Witness male? Leviticus 19:19 condemns wearing clothing made of more than one type of thread. How many Jehovah's Witnesses wear clothing made of 50% cotton and 50% polyester? Taking the Bible literally, such individuals are equally guilty as homosexuals. When questioned by the pharisees regarding the ancient laws, Jesus' reply was "I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill". In other words, Christianity and love of God and fellow man was a replacement for the ancient codes, many of which were no longer practical or relevant.
But do these two passages really condemn homosexuality? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, one sees a different condemnation. Leviticus 20:13 states, in part, "When a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman". Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition".
This word was used to refer to high priests of the surrounding idolatrous religions. It was believed that by granting sexual favors to the high priest (a fertility rite), one would be guaranteed an abundance of children and crops. Taking Leviticus 18: 22 into proper context, then, one looks at the preceding verse 21: "And you must not allow the devoting of any of your offspring to Molech". What we see here in actuality are warnings to the Israelites not to engage in the fertility rituals of the worshippers of Molech, which often required the granting of sexual favors to the priest. Had this been a mere condemnation of homosexuals, the writer would have used clearer language.
Romans 1:26-27
1 Cor. 6: 9-11
1 Tim. 1:9-11
Greek, like Hebrew, is a much more descriptive language than English. As an example, while we have the word "love", Greek has agape, storge, philia, and eros - each describing a different form of love. Further, meanings of words can change over generations. A typical example would be if someone were referred to as a "space cadet" thirty years ago, likely they were employed by NASA. Today, the same phrase would be an insult. Thus, it is easy to understand why words in the ancient Greek could be misinterpreted, as are the terms "men who lie with men", "abusers of mankind", "homosexual", and "pervert" in the above referenced scriptures. The two words in Greek used in the above scriptures that are commonly mistranslated as such are arsenokoites and malakos. Bible scholars now believe arsenokoites to mean "male temple prostitute", as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures at Deut. 23: 17-18. The actual meaning of this word, however, has been lost in history, as it was a slang term which, literally translated, means "lift bed". The Greek malakos, literally translated, means "spineless" (some linguistics scholars translate it as "limp", or "coward"). What is important to note here is that both of these words are nouns. In ancient Greek, there is no known noun to define homosexuality. It was always expressed as a verb. Just as in the Hebrew scriptures examined above, the Greek scriptures make reference to those who engaged in idolatrous practices, much of which centered around sex in return for favors. Neither the homosexual nor the direct idea of homosexuality appears anywhere in these passages. Had the writer intended to make a clear point about condemnation of gays, the Greek verb would have been utilized rather than the above-referenced nouns which are directly related to cowardice and idolatry.
But what of Paul's statement at Romans 1 where "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 towards one another"? The answer lies in Paul's words in verses 22 & 23: "Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things." Obviously, Paul's reference here is to idolatry. As mentioned above in examining the Hebrew scriptures, many pagan idol-worshipping religions of Paul's day taught that by granting sexual favors to the high priest, the one giving the favor would be rewarded with fertility of crops and offspring. It then becomes clear that Paul's reference was not to same-sex, loving relationships, but his condemnations focused on heterosexuals who, going against their own sexual nature, granted sexual favors to the leaders of pagan religions in expectation of reward by the pagan gods.
Nowhere in the Bible is any negative reference made to loving same-sex relationships. In fact, two positive references appear in the Hebrew scriptures of love between two people of the same sex:
2 Samuel 1:26 states: "I am distressed over you, my brother Jonathan, very pleasant you were to me. More wonderful was your love to me than the love from women."
Ruth 1: 16, 17 states: "And Ruth proceeded to say: 'Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I shall go, and where you spend the night I shall spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I shall die, and there is where I shall be buried. May Jehovah do so to me and add to it if anything but death should make a separation between me and you'."
While no mention is made of actual sexual activity between these two same-sex couples, it must be pointed out that these couples had made covenants with each other. To the ancient Israelites, a covenant was viewed as a holy bond, a powerful uniting of two people. (Thanks to: A Common Bond)
Books on this subject:
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - by John Boswell
Good News for Modern Gays - by Rev. Sylvia Pennington
Sex Positive - by Larry J. Uhrig
Homosexuality and Religion - edited by Richard Hasbany PhD
Living in Sin? - by Bishop John Shelby Spong
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality - by Daniel Helminiak
Openly Gay Openly Christian - by Rev. Samuel Kader
Steps To Recovery From Bible Abuse - by Rembert Truluck
Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times - by Thomas Marland Horner
The New Testament and Homosexuality - by Robin Scroggs
Homosexuality What the Bible Really Says...
by EvilForce 54 Replies latest social relationships
-
EvilForce
-
kls
Evil , i don't need to read because it does not matter what you do in your private life to me . You are a great person with much to give and that is all you need to be in my book . I have never been gay or even thought of it so i don't really understand why anyone is ,or chooses to be with same sex nor do i care but you are a who you are and makes no difference except the person you are inside and Evil is a amazing great person.
-
EvilForce
Thank you KLS...that's very sweet. As you know I really don't care what the bible says...but to some it's important. Hence my post. How's the car coming?
-
tetrapod.sapien
cool! thanks EF, great job.
-
misspeaches
Hi EF
Thanks for taking the time to collate that material. I found the whole thing very interesting and important for any christians to assess thoroughly.
Despite that I don't feel that a persons sexuality should have any bearing on their personality of people should judge them for it. I believe that a person should be acknowledged for who they are not what they do. The whole gay/straight thing has never been an issue for me. And I think your lovely anyways.
-
talesin
Evil is a amazing great person.
True dat!
Nice work, EF. I hope it is well-read, and gives folks food for thought.
tal
`straight-but-not-narrow` klass
-
Spook
Evil,
Nice research and references. I've come up against similar issues in getting others to acknowledge that it is possible (even mandatory) to read some form of evolution into bible descriptions of creation.
Once again, not an issue for me (I'll be at Chicago Pride fest this weekend with a T-shirt that says "Straight Men For Gay Rights" riding a freak bike with my Lesbian friends the Radical Cheerleaders.) However, I think from a scholarly stand point either of our issues are a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, most bible "doctrines" are a bit of a stretch. What's at stake is an attachment to needing to be right/make others wrong rather than being committed to being responsible for beliefs and celebrating the self expression of others.
-
AllAlongTheWatchtower
That's all very interesting, Evil. I wasn't aware of some of those alternate wordings. I always found it interesting though, that in the bible story of Lot and his family, that god sent angels to find righteous men...and then saved Lot and his family. I mean, how righteous can one consider Lot to be, when he is willing to throw his daughters to the wolves to save his guests? I've often thought the story would have been much more appropriate if right at that moment in the tale, the fire and brimstone just started raining down.
As to the word malakos, or malakeia (sp?)...when I was a kid growing up in the WCG, they said this word was a reference to masturbation. (Egad, I vaguely remember a whole sermon dedicated to this word, and using it to condemn masturbation...though they did sort of slant it to make it seem like an effeminate activity, and something that might well lead to homosexuality.) As I understand it now though, from a more educated point of view, all it really means is 'soft'. Though in context it can mean many different things. According to at least one website I found though, in Greek literature it was indeed used as a reference to homosexual men on more than one occasion.
Links you might find interesting or helpful in further study on the subject:
-
z
E F
Hebrew languish content mescaline and feminine if you say where are the people right away we know for sure there are man and woman the question asked was where are the people not where are the man ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? anashim people
Now ????? ??? venedda outam is to know them not to have intercourse with them but on the other hand in Hebrew to know one is also to go all the way (old Hebrew not modern today ) Genesis 4:1Adam know his wife Eve Adam yada eve
Now the word shachab (not shakab) is more to have intercourse but is also to lay down or pass away from the world like shachab eim abvotave lay down with his father (death)
EF
Great work
-
EvilForce
Thanks for the info....I'll take a look at it. I'm not a biblical scholar but have read most of the books I listed. The Lot story really never made sense to me either. The JW's were masters at saying...no that doesn't apply today...nope neither does that...but that does...so does that...etc...etc. All books have to be taken in context of the happenings of the day. What were the issues of the day when Paul was writing? He was writing while a subject of Roman society. And of course the bible was written in an ancient, dead language. Look at Shakespearen english. That's only a few hundred years old yet still in our own langauge and we need to spend time dissecting it to figure out "WTF was he talking about".
One has to conclude...if it was really that important why didn't Jesus say anything about it?