An interesting revelation: Homosexuality references in the Bible are recent and modern

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

Should have added Sodomy is named for Sodom, the town wiped out by God for its wickedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

it could mean rape and not include homosexual acts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

it could mean rape and not include homosexual acts

Well, o.k., but the New International Version clearly says send out the men "so we can have sex with them." If you want to interpret that as rape, fine. It seems clear to me the gravamen of the offense is men having sex with men.

BTW, you can look the NIV up in Wikipedia and see it was written by scholars to translate the best existing manuscripts into English as those words are commonly understood today. I understand much in the the Bible is unpalatable to us today in light of our modern sensibilities, but why not just leave it at that instead of trying to pretend the words mean something different than what they clearly say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

Should have added Sodomy is named for Sodom, the town wiped out by God for its wickedness.

Are you just jumping in at the end and skipping the first several pages of this thread?

The point is that prior to 1946, the Greek words used to describe the sin were translated as pederasts and those who commit sexual acts through power and control over others, not about romantic relationships between equals. The translation to specifically include male homosexual sex that was not about power or control (such as the rape in Leviticus) was not introduced until 1946. That is modern.

The New International Version was clearly translated by people using the currently adopted translation and not the more historically accurate translation of the terms to include homosexuality. The historical translation was around for millennia. The new translation has been around for decades. That is what I mean by modern.

If you want more details, go back to the OP and read the two links that were included there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

it could mean rape and not include homosexual acts

Well, o.k., but the New International Version clearly says send out the men "so we can have sex with them." If you want to interpret that as rape, fine. It seems clear to me the gravamen of the offense is men having sex with men.

BTW, you can look the NIV up in Wikipedia and see it was written by scholars to translate the best existing manuscripts into English as those words are commonly understood today. I understand much in the the Bible is unpalatable to us today in light of our modern sensibilities, but why not just leave it at that instead of trying to pretend the words mean something different than what they clearly say?

Why not just leave it at the original text or the German translation.. which is rape.

Why do you want to follow a translation that is other than what god intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

Should have added Sodomy is named for Sodom, the town wiped out by God for its wickedness.

Are you just jumping in at the end and skipping the first several pages of this thread?

The point is that prior to 1946, the Greek words used to describe the sin were translated as pederasts and those who commit sexual acts through power and control over others, not about romantic relationships between equals. The translation to specifically include male homosexual sex that was not about power or control (such as the rape in Leviticus) was not introduced until 1946. That is modern.

The New International Version was clearly translated by people using the currently adopted translation and not the more historically accurate translation of the terms to include homosexuality. The historical translation was around for millennia. The new translation has been around for decades. That is what I mean by modern.

If you want more details, go back to the OP and read the two links that were included there.

I read it. Wasn't Genesis written in Hebrew, not Greek? Also, the problem I have with the whole thread is that why say the part about men a having sex with me is wrongly translated, but I when Lot commits incest with his daughters, that part was correct? There is also rape in other parts of the Bible and God didn't destroy those people or cities. If one part is wrongly translated then so are many other parts. Basically You cant just pick and choose the parts you lime dependng on your particular sensibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

Should have added Sodomy is named for Sodom, the town wiped out by God for its wickedness.

Are you just jumping in at the end and skipping the first several pages of this thread?

The point is that prior to 1946, the Greek words used to describe the sin were translated as pederasts and those who commit sexual acts through power and control over others, not about romantic relationships between equals. The translation to specifically include male homosexual sex that was not about power or control (such as the rape in Leviticus) was not introduced until 1946. That is modern.

The New International Version was clearly translated by people using the currently adopted translation and not the more historically accurate translation of the terms to include homosexuality. The historical translation was around for millennia. The new translation has been around for decades. That is what I mean by modern.

If you want more details, go back to the OP and read the two links that were included there.

I read it. Wasn't Genesis written in Hebrew, not Greek? Also, the problem I have with the whole thread is that why say the part about men a having sex with me is wrongly translated, but I when Lot commits incest with his daughters, that part was correct? There is also rape in other parts of the Bible and God didn't destroy those people or cities. If one part is wrongly translated then so are many other parts. Basically You cant just pick and choose the parts you lime dependng on your particular sensibilities.

*like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

it could mean rape and not include homosexual acts

Well, o.k., but the New International Version clearly says send out the men "so we can have sex with them." If you want to interpret that as rape, fine. It seems clear to me the gravamen of the offense is men having sex with men.

BTW, you can look the NIV up in Wikipedia and see it was written by scholars to translate the best existing manuscripts into English as those words are commonly understood today. I understand much in the the Bible is unpalatable to us today in light of our modern sensibilities, but why not just leave it at that instead of trying to pretend the words mean something different than what they clearly say?

Why not just leave it at the original text or the German translation.. which is rape.

Why do you want to follow a translation that is other than what god intended.

God spoke in German? I guess that's possible since Allah spoke in Arabic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

Jude? Some Christian dude. Not my tradition. Interesting that the split between Christian and Jewish views of this text go that far back - interesting to see what the rabbis were reacting against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

Well to be fair, we have to read a translation since few if any of us can read ancient Greek. Do you have an opinion on which of the many translations of the Bible is most accurate?

I can read enough Hebrew to make it out esp with the help of a side by side translation, and commentaries. Why do you people who consider the literal meaning of the text so important, neglect language study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

er, among gentiles (specifically among Christians). the sources I quoted WRT the poor are from Jewish sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

it could mean rape and not include homosexual acts

Well, o.k., but the New International Version clearly says send out the men "so we can have sex with them." If you want to interpret that as rape, fine. It seems clear to me the gravamen of the offense is men having sex with men.

BTW, you can look the NIV up in Wikipedia and see it was written by scholars to translate the best existing manuscripts into English as those words are commonly understood today. I understand much in the the Bible is unpalatable to us today in light of our modern sensibilities, but why not just leave it at that instead of trying to pretend the words mean something different than what they clearly say?

1. You are conflating two different lines. The line about what was done to lots guests, clearly means sex/rape. Whether THAT sin is the sex itself, the rape, or the inhospitality to guests the hebrew text itself does not say. What I was referring to was the earlier line where G-d warned Lot of the sinfulness of Sodom BEFORE the incident with the guests. The plain sense of the Hebrew is entirely vague as to what the sin is, but by a clever play on words the ancient rabbis read the sin as being violence committed against a maiden who helped the poor.

2 The NIV is a Christian translation, and almost certainly reflects long Christian traditions. Not the midrash I have quoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is also rape in other parts of the Bible and God didn't destroy those people or cities. If one part is wrongly translated then so are many other parts. Basically You cant just pick and choose the parts you lime dependng on your particular sensibilities.

1. We don't hold G-d to human standards of consistency. He does what he does.

2. Its far less likely to be about rape per se, than the gross sin against hospitality.

3. As noted, Sodom was sinful before this. What THAT sin was is not made clear, but can be read as cruelty to the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is also rape in other parts of the Bible and God didn't destroy those people or cities. If one part is wrongly translated then so are many other parts. Basically You cant just pick and choose the parts you lime dependng on your particular sensibilities.

1. We don't hold G-d to human standards of consistency. He does what he does.

2. Its far less likely to be about rape per se, than the gross sin against hospitality.

3. As noted, Sodom was sinful before this. What THAT sin was is not made clear, but can be read as cruelty to the poor.

and of course the scripture for THAT is Job, 38:4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

it could mean rape and not include homosexual acts

Well, o.k., but the New International Version clearly says send out the men "so we can have sex with them." If you want to interpret that as rape, fine. It seems clear to me the gravamen of the offense is men having sex with men.

BTW, you can look the NIV up in Wikipedia and see it was written by scholars to translate the best existing manuscripts into English as those words are commonly understood today. I understand much in the the Bible is unpalatable to us today in light of our modern sensibilities, but why not just leave it at that instead of trying to pretend the words mean something different than what they clearly say?

Why not just leave it at the original text or the German translation.. which is rape.

Why do you want to follow a translation that is other than what god intended.

God spoke in German? I guess that's possible since Allah spoke in Arabic.

No. It's the translation I grew up with and also... the one reference in the OP.