יָדַע is used I think 943 times in the Bible. 10 – only 10 times does it mean “have intercourse”. In those 10 cases it is always heterosexual sex.

Let's follow your own assumption that 20% of a population could be homosexual – but the text says “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” EVERY SINGLE ONE is demanding in your opinion to have homosexual intercourse with these visitors.

You also assume that homosexuality as a concept is there prior to 1892. So you would have Lot go out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and offer to ALL the men of Sodom, who, in your understanding Lot KNOWS to all be homosexuals – his daughters! Of what interest are his daughters to homosexual men? I make my point again – Lot does not think these are homosexuals. Lot does not have a concept of “homosexuals”. The Bible does not have a concept of “homosexuals”.

Aside from Genesis you find 27 other references in the Bible to Sodom. Not a single one of them mentions homosexuality! Or rape!

Jesus uses the story of Sodom to illustrate the abomination of inhospitality – not of homosexuality or of rape.

I really am running out of ways (and time) to clarify what is IMO the only unbiased reading of the text.

You say that I am misreading the text, but you aren't giving me compelling reason to read it any other way than I do. What did the men want to do to the visitors? Is just wanting to “know them” so bad? How is that inhospitable? Why would that put fear into the men? give me something more than “the word is translated X” and “you're wrong”. Where was the threat?

It seems I have overreacted to your accusations of prejudice. Perhaps that does indeed say something about me. I will grant you that perhaps you are even right in that the men wanted nothing more than to “know” the visitors (whatever that meant). I just don't see how the passage in Ezekiel shoots down my reading. It actually seems in my eyes to support it.

If you are going to go against majority opinion, if you want to convince me and maybe you don't or think you can't, then what you're laying before me isn't enough. If you don't want to revisit on that grounds I suppose I can't blame you. We both want to go down our own tracks and we seem to be talking past each other.

Thanks again for taking the time to read what I've written here. And if I have been a poor host then I apologize. I don't want my passion in this to make me sin against a brother, a stranger, or anyone.

Cheers,
Scott

When I refer to your prejudice, I meant that as bringing a “preconceived preference or idea” to the text. I gave you the translation of יָדַע in my second comment – I never said that it could not be used for sexual intimacy in other contexts, I just do not see how either the interpretation of Ezekiel or that of Christ himself support your own interpretation that “they were sexual predators”.

I cannot see how I can make my point clearer: you are misreading the text – Ezekiel and Jesus have quite a different reading of the Sodom story. There appears little point in my revisiting as you yourself only appear to want to continue going down your own track rather than conversing with mine.

While I do believe that the men of Sodom were after the two strangers in a violent sexual fashion I don't believe that the passage itself is anti-homosexuality. I'm pretty sure I said that. If that wasn't clear then I apologize.

So to recap – The Genesis passage doesn't justify the position that same sex intercourse is immoral. You haven't really addressed any of the things I actually said. And I thank you for your comments. If you choose to come back and comment here in the future I would appreciate it if you'd make your points clearer when asked and make fewer subtly disparaging comments about your host's prejudices, unless you know him personally.

If the word “abomination” leads you to only think of sexual intercourse between homosexuals, I repeat – the issue is not with the text.

Sexual intercourse within a committed same-sex couple may very well be immoral – but you cannot use this text to justify your position. That other writers share your prejudice about this text is no defence – it took quite a while for the penny to drop for Christians about slavery, semitism, apartheid, etc. Your idea that a concept can exist prior to the word is novel – and of course by definition impossible to prove.

In passing – you may never have experienced the abomination of inhospitality to the point of being threatened and had someone protect you as Lot did – but many homosexuals have. The story may very well be read in their favour.

May God bless your ongoing search and allow you to be open to the surprising things the scriptures might actually be saying.

As far as homosexuality goes, men having sex with men and women with women, are you saying that that didn't happen prior to 1892 or that the “lifestyle” that moderns associate with it didn't exist prior to then? I'm not clear. Personally I'm certain that people were having inappropriate sexual relations ever since we were created. It's part of the fall (itself having sexual connotations/repercussions).

If the word “homosexual” wasn't in use prior to 1892 that doesn't mean the concept didn't exist. Electricity existed long before the English word for it did. I think depending on what you're arguing here, the burden of proof is on you since your reading seems to be in the minority when it comes to most commentaries I've read and given how the NIV translates it. That that particular translation is not my favorite it is certainly a reputable translation.

As to homosexuality as a concept and your assertions of the antiquity of that concept. Please find me a use of the word “homosexual” in any English literature prior to 1892.

4Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”

So you're right, I think that sleeping with someone new to your town, whether they want you to or not certainly shows a lack of hospitality.

The passage you cite says:

“Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

What that leads me to believe is not that their sin was a lack of hospitality, but that their abundance and lack of hospitality to the poor hardenend their heart and led to the further abominations.

The “concept” of homosexuality is new? With what do you back that statement up? When did homosexuality start? The Bible certainly teaches about it. Paul talks about it in the NT. If you would like me to point you in the right direction I can.

Regarding Adam and Eve, Adam said:

Gen. 2: 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Many point to that as the first marriage. Is it explicit in the text? Perhaps not, on that you may have a point.

As far as Onan is concerned, you and I agree that masturbation wasn't the issue. I did qualify my statement. He's the one that gets pointed to by many regarding that particular sin, that's all I was saying. I said in my post that the real problem he had was his disobedience.

I don't believe that I've twisted any scripture. And as far as forcing it to answer questions that it never thought of? Well that's something modern Christians (and I suspect ancient ones as well) try to do all the time. It is God's word and “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. Since the situations in our day are different, however slightly, from those of our forefathers we must seek to apply it to our modern lives. Personally I believe that the sins we commit today are no different than the sins Abraham, Jacob, or Adam committed in their days at least not at the root of them.

What I'm saying is that even assuming 20% of the population are homosexuals (which probably includes bisexuals I would guess) being against them does not strongly contribute to your argument that the prescribed range is “very narrow”. Narrow? Yes. Very narrow? Perhaps, perhaps not.

My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.

It's between 2 and 20 percent depending on how homosexuality is defined, who performs the survey, and how the question is asked. Are you suggesting that because it's a minority group, being against them does not constitute anti-some aspect of human sexuality? It's not clear what you mean when you say “there's a problem there.”