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

[Anonymous]

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."

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.

In case I have not made myself clear - when I asked "Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?" I meant IN THAT VERSE. In Genesis 18. NOT in a another book written in a different language over a thousand years later.

[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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

[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.

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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

The oldest Hebrew texts prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls were the Masoretic texts from Tiberias, circa 900 CE. Much later than the oldest Greek texts, but not translated. There is also a Samaritan Hebrew textual tradition for the first four books. IIUC the Dead Sea scrolls did not confirm any of the three, but showed elements of each It seems there were multiple versions circulating in that era.

But in any case, I don't think there is anyone disputing what the Hebrew text of Genesis is, as far this matter is concerned. The dispute about those Greek words is about the NT. As I said above the Hebrew text in 18:20 is totally vague about what the sin is. The story in Genesis 19 is clearly about an attempt at male - male rape, of guests. Whether the sin is because its male - male, or rape, or rape of guests, is not clarified in this text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

The oldest Hebrew texts prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls were the Masoretic texts from Tiberias, circa 900 CE. Much later than the oldest Greek texts, but not translated. There is also a Samaritan Hebrew textual tradition for the first four books. IIUC the Dead Sea scrolls did not confirm any of the three, but showed elements of each It seems there were multiple versions circulating in that era.

But in any case, I don't think there is anyone disputing what the Hebrew text of Genesis is, as far this matter is concerned. The dispute about those Greek words is about the NT. As I said above the Hebrew text in 18:20 is totally vague about what the sin is. The story in Genesis 19 is clearly about an attempt at male - male rape, of guests. Whether the sin is because its male - male, or rape, or rape of guests, is not clarified in this text.

^ I like that answer, except when Adam "knew" Eve and Cain "knew" his wife I don't think rape was implied, but when the mob says send out the men so we may "know" them you think it means rape them? Or maybe it does just mean we want to have sex with them. I guess you are right its not entirely clear. Like many passage in the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

The oldest Hebrew texts prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls were the Masoretic texts from Tiberias, circa 900 CE. Much later than the oldest Greek texts, but not translated. There is also a Samaritan Hebrew textual tradition for the first four books. IIUC the Dead Sea scrolls did not confirm any of the three, but showed elements of each It seems there were multiple versions circulating in that era.

But in any case, I don't think there is anyone disputing what the Hebrew text of Genesis is, as far this matter is concerned. The dispute about those Greek words is about the NT. As I said above the Hebrew text in 18:20 is totally vague about what the sin is. The story in Genesis 19 is clearly about an attempt at male - male rape, of guests. Whether the sin is because its male - male, or rape, or rape of guests, is not clarified in this text.

^ I like that answer, except when Adam "knew" Eve and Cain "knew" his wife I don't think rape was implied, but when the mob says send out the men so we may "know" them you think it means rape them? Or maybe it does just mean we want to have sex with them. I guess you are right its not entirely clear. Like many passage in the Bible.

So, to keep the language refined, "know" is a euphemism for "have intercourse" As with the many English equivalents, I don't think it implies either consent or non consent. A husband knows his wife, a rapist knows his victim. In the context of Genesis 19 it is very clearly rape - the insistence that Lot present them (if its consensual, why not wait till they come out the next day?) the statement that after Lot turns them down that they will worse ("nara" more bad) to Lot than they would have to his guests. Does not sound to me like consensual sex that is "bad" in the eyes of the Lord, but something that the "victim" would find to be bad.

I mean I just don't see how you can read that as about consensual sex.

[Anonymous]

And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door.

They are trying to break his friggin door down. This seems like an attempt at consensual sex to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

The oldest Hebrew texts prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls were the Masoretic texts from Tiberias, circa 900 CE. Much later than the oldest Greek texts, but not translated. There is also a Samaritan Hebrew textual tradition for the first four books. IIUC the Dead Sea scrolls did not confirm any of the three, but showed elements of each It seems there were multiple versions circulating in that era.

But in any case, I don't think there is anyone disputing what the Hebrew text of Genesis is, as far this matter is concerned. The dispute about those Greek words is about the NT. As I said above the Hebrew text in 18:20 is totally vague about what the sin is. The story in Genesis 19 is clearly about an attempt at male - male rape, of guests. Whether the sin is because its male - male, or rape, or rape of guests, is not clarified in this text.

^ I like that answer, except when Adam "knew" Eve and Cain "knew" his wife I don't think rape was implied, but when the mob says send out the men so we may "know" them you think it means rape them? Or maybe it does just mean we want to have sex with them. I guess you are right its not entirely clear. Like many passage in the Bible.

So, to keep the language refined, "know" is a euphemism for "have intercourse" As with the many English equivalents, I don't think it implies either consent or non consent. A husband knows his wife, a rapist knows his victim. In the context of Genesis 19 it is very clearly rape - the insistence that Lot present them (if its consensual, why not wait till they come out the next day?) the statement that after Lot turns them down that they will worse ("nara" more bad) to Lot than they would have to his guests. Does not sound to me like consensual sex that is "bad" in the eyes of the Lord, but something that the "victim" would find to be bad.

I mean I just don't see how you can read that as about consensual sex.

well, as you said - "know" is a euphemism for have intercourse. So they want to have intercourse with them. No. it wouldn't be consensual clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

The oldest Hebrew texts prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls were the Masoretic texts from Tiberias, circa 900 CE. Much later than the oldest Greek texts, but not translated. There is also a Samaritan Hebrew textual tradition for the first four books. IIUC the Dead Sea scrolls did not confirm any of the three, but showed elements of each It seems there were multiple versions circulating in that era.

But in any case, I don't think there is anyone disputing what the Hebrew text of Genesis is, as far this matter is concerned. The dispute about those Greek words is about the NT. As I said above the Hebrew text in 18:20 is totally vague about what the sin is. The story in Genesis 19 is clearly about an attempt at male - male rape, of guests. Whether the sin is because its male - male, or rape, or rape of guests, is not clarified in this text.

^ I like that answer, except when Adam "knew" Eve and Cain "knew" his wife I don't think rape was implied, but when the mob says send out the men so we may "know" them you think it means rape them? Or maybe it does just mean we want to have sex with them. I guess you are right its not entirely clear. Like many passage in the Bible.

So, to keep the language refined, "know" is a euphemism for "have intercourse" As with the many English equivalents, I don't think it implies either consent or non consent. A husband knows his wife, a rapist knows his victim. In the context of Genesis 19 it is very clearly rape - the insistence that Lot present them (if its consensual, why not wait till they come out the next day?) the statement that after Lot turns them down that they will worse ("nara" more bad) to Lot than they would have to his guests. Does not sound to me like consensual sex that is "bad" in the eyes of the Lord, but something that the "victim" would find to be bad.

I mean I just don't see how you can read that as about consensual sex.

well, as you said - "know" is a euphemism for have intercourse. So they want to have intercourse with them. No. it wouldn't be consensual clearly.

The Hebrew word "Yada" (to know) is used many times in the Torah (Old Testament). In most cases, it means to know without any sexual connotation. In a few cases, like Genesis, it is used as a euphemism for intercourse. It is used much more often as a covenent, pact or knowledge of someone than about sexual relationship with that person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint very early in the origins of the Bible. Most of the translations used for Christian Bibles originate from the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures. At the time, the Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures were far more commonly available than the Hebrew Torah so they are the more commonly used source for biblical translations.

As for the translation issues, the issue is in translating certain, specific words, namely arsenokoitai and malakoi. Those are the words that have been translated into homosexuality and used as proof of the biblical proscription again homosexuality. No one has debated the morality of incest, only whether or not the Bible has spoken against homosexuality or the translators from the 20th century.

The oldest Hebrew texts prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls were the Masoretic texts from Tiberias, circa 900 CE. Much later than the oldest Greek texts, but not translated. There is also a Samaritan Hebrew textual tradition for the first four books. IIUC the Dead Sea scrolls did not confirm any of the three, but showed elements of each It seems there were multiple versions circulating in that era.

But in any case, I don't think there is anyone disputing what the Hebrew text of Genesis is, as far this matter is concerned. The dispute about those Greek words is about the NT. As I said above the Hebrew text in 18:20 is totally vague about what the sin is. The story in Genesis 19 is clearly about an attempt at male - male rape, of guests. Whether the sin is because its male - male, or rape, or rape of guests, is not clarified in this text.

^ I like that answer, except when Adam "knew" Eve and Cain "knew" his wife I don't think rape was implied, but when the mob says send out the men so we may "know" them you think it means rape them? Or maybe it does just mean we want to have sex with them. I guess you are right its not entirely clear. Like many passage in the Bible.

So, to keep the language refined, "know" is a euphemism for "have intercourse" As with the many English equivalents, I don't think it implies either consent or non consent. A husband knows his wife, a rapist knows his victim. In the context of Genesis 19 it is very clearly rape - the insistence that Lot present them (if its consensual, why not wait till they come out the next day?) the statement that after Lot turns them down that they will worse ("nara" more bad) to Lot than they would have to his guests. Does not sound to me like consensual sex that is "bad" in the eyes of the Lord, but something that the "victim" would find to be bad.

I mean I just don't see how you can read that as about consensual sex.

well, as you said - "know" is a euphemism for have intercourse. So they want to have intercourse with them. No. it wouldn't be consensual clearly.

The Hebrew word "Yada" (to know) is used many times in the Torah (Old Testament). In most cases, it means to know without any sexual connotation. In a few cases, like Genesis, it is used as a euphemism for intercourse. It is used much more often as a covenent, pact or knowledge of someone than about sexual relationship with that person.

well er yeah, thats how euphemisms work. If it ONLY meant to have intercourse, it wouldn't be a euphemism, just a word for intercourse.