-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Uh, no. In fact, the only sort of sex hinted at in the Sodom and Gomorrah story is when Lot offers to let the men rape his daughters. The word 'know' is used in a completely literal sense in that verse--the villagers of Sodom wanted to know who the heck these strange angel-men were, presumably because they didn't like outsiders. The wicked thing that Lot begged them not to do was being unkind to his guests. To read it as an inexplicable desire to rape strangers goes against common sense.
Your interpretation goes against all common sense. If the villagers had no evil intentions, there would have been no reason for Lot to not introduce them.
The Hebrew verb (yada', to know) is used in the same sense as Gen. 4:1, and clearly means to have sex with. That this is indeed the meaning is clear from Lot's warning that they not do so wickedly, and his willingness to let them have his daughters instead, (for sex).
There are bible passages where translations can be debated.
And then there is this one, where you really have to work hard to twist, (or spin), to come up with an alternate meaning from what is clear from the context.
The Hebrew verb (yada', to know) is used in the same sense as Gen. 4:1, and clearly means to have sex with. That this is indeed the meaning is clear from Lot's warning that they not do so wickedly, and his willingness to let them have his daughters instead, (for sex).
There are bible passages where translations can be debated.
And then there is this one, where you really have to work hard to twist, (or spin), to come up with an alternate meaning from what is clear from the context.
O
Sorry, you are misinterpreting the word "know." It is far more proper to interpret it with a Bible dictionary or encyclopedia. Also, to fully understand a word, a verse, or a passage, you should have in hand at least 7 different Bible translations because our Bibles come from at least 7 different original manuscripts - not just one single scroll and each translation team will undoubtedly have their own interpretation of certain words and phrases.
With 7 different readings, you now have a better translation of the word "know" that was used in this particular passage. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed only because of the sex stuff - there were other things. These two cities were prominent areas of trade and commerce in ancient times. The people there were corrupt (i.e. as in corrupt government and society), they beat/killed the poor, the young, the children, their pagan temple rituals involved the murder of children for fertility rites, to Molech, temple prostitution, etc. It was a culmination of many things - homosexuality being just one item out of a list of many. Whoever said that it's a gross overstatement that the destruction of Sodom is only about God and gays is correct to an extent simply because there were so many other terrible things that they did - some worse than homosexuality.
With 7 different readings, you now have a better translation of the word "know" that was used in this particular passage. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed only because of the sex stuff - there were other things. These two cities were prominent areas of trade and commerce in ancient times. The people there were corrupt (i.e. as in corrupt government and society), they beat/killed the poor, the young, the children, their pagan temple rituals involved the murder of children for fertility rites, to Molech, temple prostitution, etc. It was a culmination of many things - homosexuality being just one item out of a list of many. Whoever said that it's a gross overstatement that the destruction of Sodom is only about God and gays is correct to an extent simply because there were so many other terrible things that they did - some worse than homosexuality.
That explanation is what makes no sense. How is them raping Lot's daughters any less immoral than raping the angels? The only way this passage makes sense is in the context of the ancient societies, in which strangers were considered under the protection of God (or, in pagan cultures, the local gods). The strangers wished to know, (IE, interrogate, and possibly murder) the angels when they were supposed to be under Lot's protection. And as abhorrent as it is to us, in that culture, a father was legally allowed to 'give' his daughters as a bargaining tool, which Lot attempted.
In Genesis 19: 5 the term "knowing" is translated as "having sex with" in the following translations:
NIV, CJB, GWD, GNT, HNV, CSB, NIRV, NKJ, NLT, TNIV, WEB,
Do you know something that the biblical scholars who translated these versions of the bible didn't know?
Furthermore, in all of the versions, like KJV, that use "knowing", it is understood by most bible scholars and students that this is a euphemism for the sexual act in many languages, deriving from the biblical Hebrew usage. You'll notice above that the New King James version improves on the KJV translation by changing "knowing" to "having sex with".
I think I'll go with the biblical scholars on this one.
NIV, CJB, GWD, GNT, HNV, CSB, NIRV, NKJ, NLT, TNIV, WEB,
Do you know something that the biblical scholars who translated these versions of the bible didn't know?
Furthermore, in all of the versions, like KJV, that use "knowing", it is understood by most bible scholars and students that this is a euphemism for the sexual act in many languages, deriving from the biblical Hebrew usage. You'll notice above that the New King James version improves on the KJV translation by changing "knowing" to "having sex with".
I think I'll go with the biblical scholars on this one.
O
The Bible is God-breathed. If you are a true Christian, then what Paul says/built up was in fact what God wanted done and what the Holy Spirit divinely inspired Paul to write and to do.
Honestly, based on your 3 points in your response to me, I felt that you were not a true Christian. If you were, you wouldn't respond in such a manner. You basically said to me "I know what I'm talking about" with an underlying tone of insult because I questioned you. If you're a Christian, you wouldn't feel that way - your relationship with God has nothing to do with another person.
What I believe is really going on is that there is a confusion of the definition of "Christian." For you, a Christian does not necessarily mean one who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His teachings. But even Webster's lists that as a definition for one to be a Christian (and we are using a secular, non-biblical dictionary).
Honestly, based on your 3 points in your response to me, I felt that you were not a true Christian. If you were, you wouldn't respond in such a manner. You basically said to me "I know what I'm talking about" with an underlying tone of insult because I questioned you. If you're a Christian, you wouldn't feel that way - your relationship with God has nothing to do with another person.
What I believe is really going on is that there is a confusion of the definition of "Christian." For you, a Christian does not necessarily mean one who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His teachings. But even Webster's lists that as a definition for one to be a Christian (and we are using a secular, non-biblical dictionary).