http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-5.htm

Wrong version.... "They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." uh??? Thanks new translation...

Correct? And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

I guess the idea is that earlier in the bible, "know" was applied in the carnal sense so naturally people just assume all ref to know will be sexual.... er, okay.............. wrong!

The men from S&G that Lot harbored were wanted as possible traitors to the cities. So naturally they wanted to identify the men....

I think this is the most famous example of anti-gay slander from bible thumpers. Where else does it say or imply anything about gay people? Does the bible even mention gayness at all in truth? I doubt it.

I think there's some passage in Leviticus (18:22) that attacks same-sex couplings.

I think the greater shortcoming is that even in the New Testament, there's still a condoning of slavery (especially of women but also of men).  It's not to say that the Bible doesn't have some useful stories, but considering that greater society has since rejected a more pervasive tenet of Bible ("slavery is okay"), it's sort of astonishing that the Bible should be taken as an unquestioned source for anything.

Are you familiar with the phrase "in the biblical sense of the word"?
Because what you've listed is a modern translation (for modern English audiences) and an older translation, for audiences for whom "to know" meant "to have sex with."

It doesn't even make sense to think of it as getting to know the new guests - what, Sodom rolls out the welcome mat and the angels burn it down? Not to mention that Lot offered the marauders his daughters (he states they are virgin) in the strangers' stead and the town rape brigade refused...

It's not "slander", Hurin. It's the meaning of the chapter, like it or not. (By the way, "bible thumpers" is a rude perjorative. Please stop insulting us. Thanks.)

Some people take it to mean this was Sodom's only sin - in truth, they were sinful to the core. The attempted mass rape was the last straw.


And finally, homosexual relations are mentioned in several places - most people identify at least six, including Romans 1. So yes, the Bible mentions homosexuality. Quite strongly, actually.


The Bible doesn't say slavery is OK, Kaelin. It doesn't say it's a horrendous sin either; it just gives proper conduct rules for every role in the culture of the ancient world - a culture that seems horrendous to modern eyes but was normal back then. Oh, and it sets up a system by which slaves were freed every fifty years, essentially making the practice unsustainable.


Hurin, you're obviously angry. But you're also obviously uninformed and prone to hurtful assumptions. Please stop.

There's a well-known phenomenon often called "lost in translation."

Not only do some words (in all languages) have multiple meanings, culturally those words (and others) change their meaning depending on the context of the era...

A very well known example is in the Declaration of Independence (US), the phrase "...all men are created equal...", when it was written, "men" referred specifically to white men, not women, Natives, blacks, etc. But today's morals demanded that we ignore the intended meaning, in favor of a broader definition.

And that's just the change caused by the years, and "only" 230 years, at that. The Bible was written in several languages, and translated into Latin, then into whatever modern language used today (each language = different country = different cultural lens to understand).

It's not just a bible-enthusisast thing...

While there are problems with Biblical translation, this was not one of them.  Read the entire chapter in context and you will understand (unless you just don't want to) that it refers to sexual contact.

Quote from: hurin19067 on November 21, 2013, 07:20:51 AM

I think this is the most famous example of anti-gay slander from bible thumpers. Where else does it say or imply anything about gay people? Does the bible even mention gayness at all in truth? I doubt it.

This isn't a hate site.  "Anti-gay slander" is no less objectionable that anti-religious slander.

  As a believer, I found that a lot of the translations be off and with some parts missing to the Bible puzzle.  It is up to the clergy to teach the proper translation.  I been to sermons where the minister or pastor did refer to the original Greek or Hebrew words with a better translation.  Here's a good example of the KJV word "effeminate" in Corinthians: http://mercytoall.net/dtm/1corinthians.htm
 
  Joelene

Quote from: ZoeM on November 21, 2013, 09:14:46 AM
Are you familiar with the phrase "in the biblical sense of the word"?
Because what you've listed is a modern translation (for modern English audiences) and an older translation, for audiences for whom "to know" meant "to have sex with."

I mentioned that in my post. Words can have many meanings.

Quote

It's not "slander", Hurin. It's the meaning of the chapter, like it or not. (By the way, "bible thumpers" is a rude perjorative. Please stop insulting us. Thanks.)

"Us"?

How could you be targeted by the word? A bible-thumper is a bigot who uses the bible to justify every bigotted thought they have. They use it as a weapon against others. Hence "thump."

I'm not calling everyone who reads the bible for meaning and solace in their lives a thumper...

Quote from: hurin19067 on November 24, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
I mentioned that in my post. Words can have many meanings.

"Us"?

How could you be targeted by the word? A bible-thumper is a bigot who uses the bible to justify every bigotted thought they have. They use it as a weapon against others. Hence "thump."

I'm not calling everyone who reads the bible for meaning and solace in their lives a thumper...

"Bible thumpers" is a perjorative for any Christian, especially for anyone who takes the Bible literally. It was originally taken from the great revival preachers such as Charles Spurgeon, known for pounding their Bibles during sermons to emphasize their point. You may not have meant it as a general insult, but it's a hurtful and negative term regardless. I'm sure we can all think of similar terms for ourselves we'd rather not be used...?
Further, I'd guess you'd identify anyone who believes homosexuality/->-bleeped-<- to be wrong based on the Bible as a bigot? If so, I have to say I disagree. Westboro is a church of bigots. But the vast majority of Christians are nothing like Westboro, and even if they disagree with you on issues of morality judging them for their beliefs, rather than their actions, is ... Well ... Bigoted.

Quote from: Kaelin on November 21, 2013, 08:58:20 AM
I think there's some passage in Leviticus (18:22) that attacks same-sex couplings.

Took me five mins, but I found it.

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Well, okay... that does say something against it. But I believe I read all over the reference of Sodom & Gommarh without finding any reference... funny how S&G is so widely used as being the cities of sin destroyed.... The bible is subjective, can we agree? People find what they want in it.

Oh, dear.  Yes, I think "Bible thumper" is pejorative.



So, we're dealing with Hebrew here, a language much more closely related to Arabic than any other widely spoken language.  It's decidedly not Indo-Euro.

One thing I've struggled most with learning Japanese (another very-not-Indo-Euro language) is that way verbs match up to situations are not at all the same.  Thus, it's impossible to come up with good translations for verbs in isolation.  I suspect this happens whenever you have two unrelated languages.

Say the phone is ringing and interrupting me and I'm a little irked.  I might mumble to myself: hai, hai, ima deru kara machi na yo - Hold your horses, I'm coming.  The verbs in their dictionary forms are deru and matsu which respectively mean "to emerge" and "to await."


My Hebrew is non-existent.  But, I can google up an interlinear text and play with that.  In this case, the verb in question is w'nëd'äh, dictionary form yada`, usually glossed (drumroll, please) "to know."

The context implies that whatever the Sodomites have in mind is awfully violent, and that Lot is protecting the malakim from them.  I'd consider English "to rape" or "to take care of" depending on what fits the rest of the translation.

I suspect "to have sex with" doesn't adequately convey the sense of the original text to many readers.  But, I'm not a Hebrew scholar nor Biblical translator, just a language nerd with an interlinear text and my opinions.

Okay, I'll read the whole thing again. I'm starting at http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/18.htm and moving on down to the end of the narrative where the cities are destroyed.

But, my impression is that, yes, S&G were "evil" cities. Lot travels to this place and at the outskirts and looks at it from the outside. He doesn't actually go in there, though. However, some men come to him and join him in his settlement, defectors from S&G. ...

Next thing you know, God has the cities destroyed. Er, that's sudden....


Okay.... First section has Sarah thinking she's too old to have children... God makes a pact with Abraham that if there are fifty virtuous men there, he'll spare the city...

Okay, Lot is welcoming the angels.... oh wow, the "men" turn out to be angels.... and Lot serves them dinner. Jealous, a huge mass of people comes to Lot's house but he refuses to them meet the angels. That's not nice of him. Keeping the angels all to himself....

Now Lot is letting the angels marry his daughters... they are leaving to get to Zoar and God suddenly destroys the city... 24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Oh, poor woman... just for looking at something?

I wonder... I'll need to do more research on the crimes of those cities.... it's a fascinating read.


Hrm... I wonder how those men how those men who Lot believed were angels proved their angelic nature to him? It doesn't say.

When reading this closely you see 3 angels came to Abraham. Then 2 left to go into Sodom and the Lord spake with Abraham. Since the word of God says no man has seen God it was not God the Father that spake with Abraham but Jesus. So when seeing this we see Jesus did point out sin in the old testament. He just wasn't called Jesus. As David said The Lord said unto My Lord or Jehovah said unto Jesus.

Lot wasn't hoarding the angels but not knowing they were angels with the power to smite the people with blindness he was protecting them from being raped. Very soon he saw their power when they blinded the people.

As for Lot's wife it is a type and shadow of rebellion and turning back to sin. She was warned not to look back just as we are warned not to look back once the Lord has come into our lives and renewed us.

I hope this helps some.

as already said theres probably many things who been wrotte abit odd in the translation.
In our native bible I heard they use "get to know" as getting to know someone or as having sex with someone, then its up to oneself to guess how they "get to know this person" .

I don't think we could get 100% a correct translation without looking at the past origin and even so there would be part missing out.

Quote from: musicofthenight on November 24, 2013, 12:39:52 PM
Oh, dear.  Yes, I think "Bible thumper" is pejorative.

I have used "Bible thumper" before, and as I understand it, it means "biblical literalist."

Quote from: hurin19067 on November 21, 2013, 07:20:51 AM
http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-5.htm

Wrong version.... "They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." uh??? Thanks new translation...

Correct? And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

I guess the idea is that earlier in the bible, "know" was applied in the carnal sense so naturally people just assume all ref to know will be sexual.... er, okay.............. wrong!

The men from S&G that Lot harbored were wanted as possible traitors to the cities. So naturally they wanted to identify the men....

I think this is the most famous example of anti-gay slander from bible thumpers. Where else does it say or imply anything about gay people? Does the bible even mention gayness at all in truth? I doubt it.

In response to the "gay" question. Yes. In Red letters, it says very specifically, a man shall not do unto a man as he would a woman and a woman unto a woman as she would a man. Altho this is simply a homosexual act. You may be emotionally bonded with anyone you choose. the act is a sin, Not the temptation.

The following two links might be of interest to people. Please note that both men are now dead, and that both men were Biblical scholars, not layman trying to interpret things through a modern lens.


http://epistle.us/homobible.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/ancient-christian-church-gay-marriages_n_3678315.html


I'm not going to tell anyone what to believe but to assert that a particular understanding of the bible is cut and dried "the truth" is clearly wrong. I suggest reading other perspectives and keeping an open mind.