1 edit
-Removed-I use to have the tag "jaywill".
I was off for awhile and have returned as "sonship".
Both then and now I sometimes go across town to visit my elderly parents. My dad plays chess. His tag is GSWILL.
When I am over here I prefer not to log him out and log me in because I like to keep things very simple for the old gentleman. So I may check conversations and post under his tag - GSWILL.
I probably cause too much confusion by doing this and will have to curtail it.
I have always tried to let people know who it is who is posting.
There you have it - sonship (aka jaywill) sometimes using GSWILL's PC.
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is rather a simple matter. I notice that you leave questions I put to you unanswered. But you like to ask more of me.
I'm sure I've pointed this out to you before, but you often take sentences in posts out of context and then address them as if the context within which they were said doesn't exist. I don't know why you don't seem to understand that it makes it impossible for you to gain a true understanding of what is actually being conveyed to you. Or perhaps you do it the morality of EACH of the POSSIBLE underlying reasons for that level of judgment?
If you want to know what Jesus has in mind concerning His mentioning of Noah's flood you should go back to read about Noah's flood.
If you want to know what Jesus is refering to when mentioning the days of Lot in Sodom, you go back and read about that.
His references to the Old Testament stories carry His implicit belief and agreement with those stories.
"It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gamorrah ..." can be understood simply by going back to read about what was not tolerable with the land of Sodom and Gamorrah.
It is a simple matter. I think you are obfuscating a straight forward matter.
And once again Jesus taught that this God of the Old Testament was He Himself become a man. If you do not like what God did in Genesis chapter 19 you have to lay the blame on Christ as He was BEFORE He was born of the virgin Mary.
The same goes for the world of Adam, the world of Noah, the Egypt of Moses, Capernum, Ninevah, Tyre or Sidon and any other places Jesus mentioned in His teaching.
The burden is on you to prove that Jesus had some OTHER evaluation and interpretation of Genesis 19 than God judging them for their homosexual excesses.
Don't accuse me of dishonesty or taking things out of context. You take up the responsibility to demonstrate that Jesus had ANOTHER view of those histories other than that presented in the OT passages He refered to.
--- sonship (aka jaywill)
1 edit
Originally posted by GSWILLBased on what you've posted thus far, your understanding of S&G is extremely problematic. It doesn't hold water. I'll let V explain it to you since he already offered to do that.
This is rather a simple matter. I notice that you leave questions I put to you unanswered. But you like to ask more of me.
If you want to know what Jesus has in mind concerning His mentioning of Noah's flood you should go back to read about Noah's flood.
If you want to know what Jesus is refering to when mentioning the days of Lot in Sodom, you go bac R view than that presented in the passages He expounded upon.
--- sonship (aka jaywill)
Be that as it may, there's another consideration that gets to the heart of matter which also needs to be addressed.
It's a direct enough question:
"Do you acknowledge that one can reference the level of judgment of S&G as an example of the power of God without necessarily implying a judgement as to the morality of EACH of the POSSIBLE underlying reasons for that level of judgment?"
Why don't you answer it?
Originally posted by GSWILLI would not take it personally, who is there that has not had their reading comprehension and honesty called into question.
This is rather a simple matter. I notice that you leave questions I put to you unanswered. But you like to ask more of me.
If you want to know what Jesus has in mind concerning His mentioning of Noah's flood you should go back to read about Noah's flood.
If you want to know what Jesus is refering to when mentioning the days of Lot in Sodom, you go bac ...[text shortened]... s other than that presented in the OT passages He refered to.
--- sonship (aka jaywill)
4 edits
The Hebrew the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 is not homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
The misconstrual comes from either ignoring the distinction of the Hebrew terms (whether through bias or not), or relying on translations that (however good they may be otherwise) use terms that, in English, do not show the distinction. The word often translated as “men” (in 19:4&5, as well as, e.g., 81:1) is enoshey/enoshim, the plural of enosh, which is the biblical Hebrew word used to cover people of both sexes. The biblical term that refers to “men” specifically (as males) is ish (woman: ishah; plurals: ishim, ishot).
The following is a more accurate translation, by Jewish scholar Richard Elliott Friedman:
“(4) They had not yet lain down, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, from youth to old man, all the people from the farthest reaches. (5) And they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the people who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let’s know them [dea, imperfect of yada].”
Elliot’s commentary: “[T]he people are threatening sexual abuse of the guests. . . . But this episode is also commonly understood to be about homosexual rape. I see no basis for this whatsoever. The text says that two people come to Sodom, and that all of the people of Sodom come and say, ‘Let’s know them.’ The homosexuality interpretation apparently comes from misunderstanding the Hebrew word anashim to mean ‘men,’ instead of ‘people’.”*
Are translations that render enosh as “man/men/mankind” just wrong? Not really. Those terms have long been used in English to denote people of both genders. But they can also refer to persons of just the male sex, which is not the usage of enosh in biblical Hebrew. It is the construal of homosexual behavior from those translations that is wrong. (I am not dismissing the possibility of prejudicial translation in some cases, but here I doubt it; at least I am aware of no evidence for it, in any of the various English translations that I have.)
—“The basic meaning of 'enôsh is "man" in the sense of "mankind." The word can refer to an individual only in the most general sense (e.g. "blessed is the man who does this Isa 56:2) and thus lacks the specificity of 'îsh.” [From the Hebrew Lexicon in Hermeneutica BibleWorks.]
The sin of the Sodomites here is intended rape and other violent assault. This is further cemented (though it need not be; the immediate text is clear) by the parallel story in Judges 19, where the people raped and abused the (female) concubine until she died.**
The people of Sodom had other sins as well (e.g., Ezekial 19:49), some specified, some not—but there is no evidence that homosexual behavior was one of the sins referred to, let alone the particular sin/guilt/wickedness/depravity, whatever. One can of course read things into texts that are not there, from whatever extraneous perspective (even innocently). One might assume, for whatever reason (even innocently), that a given generality—e.g., “wickedness” or “immorality” (including sexual immorality)—somehow “must” refer to a particular case, and then read that into the text. Here, though, there really is no basis for it. I repeat: here there is no basis for it, no basis whatsoever.
The sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 is not homosexuality, either in orientation or behavior. The Hebrew words are there, if that is what was intended—but those words were not used.
______________________________________________
* Richard Elliot Friedman, Commentary on the Torah: With a New English Translation and Hebrew Text, HarperCollins, 2003. Italics in the original; bold mine.
** Neither the Levite nor his host in the Judges story, nor Lot in Genesis 19, come off well. The Etz Chaim: Torah and Commentary (2001, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism) notes that Ramban [Nachmanides] condemns Lot for this proposal [offering his daughters to the mob], declaring that a man should face death rather than permit his wife or daughters to be so abused.
5 edits
Originally posted by vistesdSuch a purely lexical interpretation is dangerous if it ignores the context, Lot stated that the crowd may abuse his daughters as some kind of recompense, as these men were guests in his house. Thus the translators would have taken the contextual dynamics and used it to form a basis that rape was intended. Even if it can be construed that women were present and surrounded the house it makes little sense that he would offer his daughters to them. The emphasis certainly seems to be on homosexual rape and to cite the fact that all persons from the city were gathered, i cannot see negating this.
The Hebrew the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 is [b]not homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
The misconstrual comes from either ignoring the distinction of the Hebrew terms (whether through bias or not), or relying on translations that (however good they may be otherwise) use terms that, in English, do not show the distinction. The word o ng that a man should face death rather than permit his wife or daughters to be so abused.[/b]
(Genesis 19:4-8) 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.” Finally Lot went out to them to the entrance, but he shut the door behind him. Then he said: “Please, my brothers, do not act badly. 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. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
Originally posted by vistesdI have to agree with robbie on this one. 😏
The Hebrew the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 is [b]not homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
The misconstrual comes from either ignoring the distinction of the Hebrew terms (whether through bias or not), or relying on translations that (however good they may be otherwise) use terms that, in English, do not show the distinction. The word o ...[text shortened]... ng that a man should face death rather than permit his wife or daughters to be so abused.[/b]
Originally posted by vistesdI would agree that God did not destroy Sodom just because they were "gay". Looking at the fact that they gang raped strangers according to the account in Genesis is evident of far greater wickedness. Having said that, it is also evident that Israelites were stoned for such acitivity, and Paul speaks against it as well.
The Hebrew the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 is [b]not homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
The misconstrual comes from either ignoring the distinction of the Hebrew terms (whether through bias or not), or relying on translations that (however good they may be otherwise) use terms that, in English, do not show the distinction. The word o ...[text shortened]... ng that a man should face death rather than permit his wife or daughters to be so abused.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. It’s not strictly a “lexical analysis”, but an accurate reading of the Hebrew.
Such a purely lexical interpretation is dangerous if it ignores the context, Lot stated that the crowd may abuse his daughters as some kind of recompense, as these men were guests in his house. Thus the translators would have taken the contextual dynamics and used it to form a basis that rape was intended. Even if it can be construed that women wer ...[text shortened]... to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
2. The Hebrew is the original, so I can’t see relying on a translation to show what the original says; I chose Friedman’s translation because it happens to represent the Hebrew more accurately (I had already written down the enosh / ish distinction in my notes). The use of the word “brothers” is no more decisive here than the use of “men”, no more than the phrase “the brotherhood of man” excludes females in conventional usage (e.g., the ‘70s pop band by the same name).
3. The phrase your translation renders as “from boy to old man” is better read as “from young to old” (Young’s Literal Translation has it: “from young even unto aged” ).
—There are no non-gendered word in biblical Hebrew. That is why the biblical usage of enosh, as opposed to ish/ishah is so telling. A “lexical analysis” that ignores how the Hebrew works, in terms of gender designations, really would be dangerous. The “contextual dynamics” cannot be used to overcome the Hebrew designations—I certainly agree that contextual dynamics are important, but they simply do not make this about homosexual behavior, as opposed to sexual and physical assault generally.
4. In terms of the futility of offering his daughters to them, the text does not indicate “futility”, but only the anger of the crowd at not getting they had demanded (and their anger at Lot’s appeal). This is further indicated by the Judges 19 text, in which the same language enosh is used, and yet the Levites concubine was taken and raped, and abused alal, by the crowd. Nevertheless, sexual abuse (rape) need not imply carnal penetration.
One cannot use this text to argue for the sinfulness/wickedness of homosexuality; I made a briefer post on page 5 indicating why homosexuality per se is not condemned by the Hebrew Bible. You disagree. Understood—but you’re wrong (not dishonest, not pernicious or anything like that—just wrong).
Originally posted by whodeyAgreed about Genesis 19. For the rest, see my post (and the link with it) on page 5 of this thread. As for Paul—
I would agree that God did not destroy Sodom just because they were "gay". Looking at the fact that they gang raped strangers according to the account in Genesis is evident of far greater wickedness. Having said that, it is also evident that Israelites were stoned for such acitivity, and Paul speaks against it as well.
1. I have some links to sites that do a similar analysis of the NT texts, including Paul. I can post them, but I have no intention of arguing them, since I restrict my own exegesis to the HS.
2. With that said, I don’t read the HS through the lens of the NT. I realize that Christians do, and understand why they do (without criticism), and that just means there is an impasse.
6 edits
Originally posted by vistesdThe whole tenure of your argument practically ignores the context and instead focuses on the definitions of specific terms, namely the translation of the term men ( I checked an interlinear it states 'mortals', the mortals of the city) and it appears to me to have as its basis a purely lexical argument. Even for allowing that there are no gendered related terms, even for allowing that it refers to the people of the city, young and old, contextually you cannot escape that fact they they have come there to do Lots guests harm. This cannot be ignored nor compensated for with references to specific terms, its part of the context, so no, its not wrong, its essentially self evident and any translator worth his or her salt salt would recognize the fact. To attempt to justify an argument on the basis of strictly lexical understanding is to engage in hyper literalism and ignore the translators real task, to render the verse as closely as possible to the original but making room for both nuance and the constructs of language.
1. It’s not strictly a “lexical analysis”, but an accurate reading of the Hebrew.
2. The Hebrew is the original, so I can’t see relying on a translation to show what the original says; I chose Friedman’s translation because it happens to represent the Hebrew more accurately (I had already written down the enosh / ish distinction in my not ...[text shortened]... e. Understood—but you’re wrong (not dishonest, not pernicious or anything like that—just wrong).
Faced with this task of rendering the account its hard to see why those persons have come to Lots house for any other purpose than to rape his guests. Perhaps you can offer an alternative explanation for if there are males present and we must assume that there are and if they are intent on raping lots guests and we must concur that they are, then why is that not homosexual rape? Why is it being commuted to simple sexual and physical assault? Is a male raping another male not a homosexual act?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is nothing that you say here that I really disagree with, except for the statement that my argument is strictly lexical, ignoring context. It’s just that the context does not support singling out homosexual rape as the crime here (and certainly not homosexuality per se, even if one were to assume that all the “men” [ishim, males] of Sodom were homosexual). The use of enosh means that women are not excluded from the mob.
The whole tenure of your argument practically ignores the context and instead focuses on the definitions of specific terms, namely the translation of the term men ( I checked an interlinear it states 'mortals', the mortals of the city) and it appears to me to have as its basis a purely lexical argument. Even for allowing that there are no gendered r ...[text shortened]... ed to simple sexual and physical assault? Is a male raping another male not a homosexual act?
With that said, I’ll just respond to a couple of things—
Even for allowing that there are no gendered related terms, even for allowing that it refers to the people of the city, young and old, contextually you cannot escape that fact they they have come there to do Lots guests harm. This cannot be ignored nor compensated for with references to specific terms, its part of the context, so no, its not wrong, its essentially self evident and any translator worth his or her salt salt would recognize the fact.
Agreed: they were there “to do Lot’s guests harm”, no question. However, even assuming that women cannot rape anyone (male or female: I have an account that I recall that involved only women and something like a broomstick; I even hate to mention it), they can still incite to rape.
Also, as I indicated briefly, I’m not sure that there’s any way in the Hebrew gender-play to say that the enoshim who were the malakhim (messengers/angels) were also ishim, or clearly perceived as ishim—but I haven’t looked at it closely enough.
Faced with this task of rendering the account it hard to see why those persons have come to Lots house for any other purpose than to rape his guests.
Rape: agreed; sexual abuse generally (the Hebrew yada is sometimes used as a euphemism for all kinds of sexual activity, abusive and not; here it’s clearly abusive). That the text (the whole text, with context) in any way indicates specifically homosexual rape: not. And where something like that is not specified, it cannot simply be inferred, and then fed back into the exegesis as context.
Originally posted by vistesdEDIT to my recent posts—
There is nothing that you say here that I really disagree with, except for the statement that my argument is strictly lexical, ignoring context. It’s just that the context does not support singling out homosexual rape as the crime here (and certainly not homosexuality per se, even if one were to assume that all the “men” [ishim, males] of Sodom were ...[text shortened]... is not specified, it cannot simply be inferred, and then fed back into the exegesis as context.
I just want to make sure that nobody assumes that I am arguing that no homosexual activity is condemned in the Hebrew Bible. My post on page 5 may not have made that clear, though I thought it did. What I do argue is that one cannot properly generalize from the specific acts condemned to homosexuality wholesale (orientation or behavior).
There is actually a Jewish hermeneutical rule involved there for application to the Hebrew Torah—that is, about arguing from the specific to the general, and vice versa: when, and how, it is appropriate, and when not. But I have not made use of it here.