What does the bible REALLY say about homosexuality?

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
You say that "homosexuality is a sin". What is the basis of that statement. The bible? What version of the bible? Translated by whom and with what agenda?

Even if you are a true believer, isn't it obvious that the interpretation of what the bible says can be only as good as the translation of the bible you're reading? And if the "modern" bibles are not accurate translations of the original texts, aren't beliefs based on the modern bibles suspect?

Regardless of what one specifically believes, it's important to understand where our beliefs come from. I happened upon the following site, and I think it has VERY interesting information, especially for those who seek to understand what the bible REALLY teaches about homosexuality:

THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The basic point of the site is that one's view of what the bible says about homosexuality is highly dependent on where one starts (modern English translations or the original, ancient texts). And if one studies the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek biblical writings, one finds that "these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships."

Some excerpts:

English translations of the Bible clearly condemn various homosexual acts. Five Hebrew and Greek original texts definitely condemn homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples, and heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts.

Interpretations of additional texts differ among Christians:

Religious liberals have often interpreted other passages as condemning men who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples. They view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship.

Religious conservatives often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms.

and

Before considering what the Bible might say about homosexuality in today's society, one must figure out what the authors of the Bible meant when they wrote their passages about homosexuality. In order to do this, one must make a fundamental decision -- whether to:

1. Accept the teachings of one's faith group. If you do so, and if you follow a conservative denomination then you will probably be taught that homosexual behavior is chosen, changeable and condemned by God. It is something that a person does. If you follow a liberal faith group, you may well accept homosexuality as an alternate, normal, unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans. It is something that a person is.
2. Study passages from your favorite English version of the Bible, which is filtered by the theological beliefs and homophobia (if any) of the translators. If so, then you will find many passages in the Bible which condemn certain forms of homosexual behavior.
3. Follow the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek writings and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. If so, then you will find that these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships.

In other words, your conclusion will be highly dependent on what you use as your starting point. However, I would think ANYONE who seeks to determine "God's will" would be inclined to agree that the original texts are the best source for determining God's will.

Finally, just to demonstrate where a little mis-translation can lead, there is this analysis of the famous verses Leviticus 18:22 and 20:12:

Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), showed that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result. 6

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."

I encourage anyone who claims to have a true interest in understanding what the bible "really says" to read the entire article (it comes to about 7 pages of text). It is enlightening (at least, it was enlightening to me). And if you claim, "homosexuality is an abomination", what are you using as the source of that opinion?

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: shira
Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), showed that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result. 6

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."

It's pretty clear from these that whoever does the translation (particularly the NLT) has a political agenda. A couple of points:

"ritually unclean" = "detestable"? Was that the intended nuance? If so, prove it.

If the original text of the Bible says nothing about female homosexuality, what right to others have to impose their ideas regarding it into the Bible via translation?

What is "a woman's bed", as opposed to any other kind of bed? Is homosexuality only prohibited in such a "woman's bed"? Does the passage even refer to homosexuality? Maybe it's prohibiting MMF threesomes, or even polygamy (a single woman being sexually active with different men over time)?
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
i really love reading different translations of all books...it is always very interesting to see the differences.
 

dannybek2

Senior member
Apr 12, 2005
213
0
0
Wow, bringing deeply religious issues into a computer hardware forum...... nerds with an agenda?
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,220
654
126
Originally posted by: fiasco
Wow, bringing deeply religious issues into a computer hardware forum...... nerds with an agenda?

This is the politics and news forum, which is an off shoot of the off topic forum. OT, for the most part, has nothing to do with computer hardware :p
 

ECUHITMAN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
815
0
0
You also have to look at it from an historical context. Thousands of years ago, there were very small villages and tribes of people. If men started to only have sex with other men (and women with other women) their tribe/village would eventually die out (because of lack of off spring). That would be bad. So, to control this behavior we have scripture that says do not do this, it is a sin.

 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
22`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
romans ch1 in 12 translations
That's the literal translation, the suggestion quoted in the OP is a flat-out lie.
But those are clearly marked sanitary guidelines for those people at that time. Sanitary guidelines that would generally be well to be followed.

The real condemnation of homosexual sex is found in the new testament:

NIV, easey to read
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

JKV, standard king james
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
WE, a translation for those who may have trouble understanding english *such as those who try to say that God's got nothing to say about the sinfullnature of homosexual, or any extra martial sex*
26That is why God left them to do the wrong things they wanted to do. Their women left the right way for women and did things that are wrong for women to do.

27Their men also left the right way with women. They wanted to have sex with one another. They did wrong things with other men. Their own bodies were punished because of the wrong things they did.

The message, a clifnotes that tries to get at what this paritcular group thinks is what the text ment. It's less a bible translation and more a bible comentary
26Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either--women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. 27Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men--all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it--emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

Amplified bible, adds the social/contextual information with a fire-and-brimstone spin.
26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

NLT the condosention bible.
26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

ESV someware between kjv and niv
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
NIV-UK a british new international version.. not sure what the diference is
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Darby translation Plymouth Brethren use it.
26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

ASV kindof a translation to americanease
26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

CEV contemporary english, a translation that intends to be in poor-americnaease
26God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

the intent of the auther is clear no mater how you look at it, do i have to repeat it in Swahili?
26Kwa hiyo, Mungu aliwaachia wafuate tamaa zao za aibu. Hata wanawake wao waliacha matumizi ya asili ya maumbile yao wakatumia miili yao isivyokusudiwa. 27Hali kadhalika wanaume waliacha uhusiano wa asili kati ya waume na wake wakawakiana tamaa wao kwa wao. Wanaume walifanyiana mambo ya aibu, nao waka pata katika miili yao adhabu waliyostahili kama matokeo ya uovu wao.


homosexual sex is a sin, you receive the punishment for said sin simply by engaging in it, looks like these folks had trouble with stds or anal rupturing or any number of other problems associated with homosexual sex.

But the real questions Christians should ask is: does this mean we should be mean to/repress those who engage in homosexual sex, the answer is of course no more than any other sinner, ourselves included.

Jesus came so that ALL sinners could be saved, and accepting Christ is far more important than yelling at people who are screwing up and receiving just punishment immediately in them.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
You say that "homosexuality is a sin". What is the basis of that statement. The bible? What version of the bible? Translated by whom and with what agenda?


Shira, you know me to be a Christian and a reader of the Bible.... at least from the criticisms you have thrown my way. ;)

However, on PART of this I agree with you. My thought is that the Bible is a guide. However, it was written by man and then a committee selected some of the writings for inclusion and some for exclusion. Finally, it is interpreted.

Our language changes. Example. Militia. It was used to describe "every abled bodied man" a couple of hundred years ago. To apply the our definition of today to their writings without interpreting would be a travesty.

On the other hand: Sex. Per President Clinton meant giving sexual pleasure to another. (Sorry, I don't have his exact quote at the moment.) Thus, in an interview, after admitting his guilt and while denying it again, he explained that he was not lying about not having sex with her becuase he was not giving pleasure to her. I call such definiton changes a lie. Some say, WOOT! :)

Thus, we have to be careful when translating ancient text. But, as we both point out, people will translate it according to their background.

Neither you nor I nor (probably) anyone in this forum knows the real meaning.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: shira
You say that "homosexuality is a sin". What is the basis of that statement. The bible? What version of the bible? Translated by whom and with what agenda?


Shira, you know me to be a Christian and a reader of the Bible.... at least from the criticisms you have thrown my way. ;)

However, on PART of this I agree with you. My thought is that the Bible is a guide. However, it was written by man and then a committee selected some of the writings for inclusion and some for exclusion. Finally, it is interpreted.

Our language changes. Example. Militia. It was used to describe "every abled bodied man" a couple of hundred years ago. To apply the our definition of today to their writings without interpreting would be a travesty.

On the other hand: Sex. Per President Clinton meant giving sexual pleasure to another. (Sorry, I don't have his exact quote at the moment.) Thus, in an interview, after admitting his guilt and while denying it again, he explained that he was not lying about not having sex with her becuase he was not giving pleasure to her. I call such definiton changes a lie. Some say, WOOT! :)

Thus, we have to be careful when translating ancient text. But, as we both point out, people will translate it according to their background.

Neither you nor I nor (probably) anyone in this forum knows the real meaning.
just droped 12 independent points of reference all saying the same thing:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: ahurtt
The poop chute is an EXIT not an ENTRANCE! 'Nuff said.

it's silly to think that all homosexuals (gay males, lesbians) are into anal sex. that just isn't true. BTW are your objections limited to anal sex, or do you object to male-male or female-female oral sex, kissing, cuddling as well? What would the basis of your objection be?
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
The above is a condemnation of people going against their natures. It would certainly be against the nature of heterosexual people to engage in homosexual sex. How ever the above says nothing about people for whom it is "natural" to be attracted sexually to people of the same gender.
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

homosexual sex is a sin, you receive the punishment for said sin simply by engaging in it, looks like these folks had trouble with stds or anal rupturing or any number of other problems associated with homosexual sex.

But the real questions Christians should ask is: does this mean we should be mean to/repress those who engage in homosexual sex, the answer is of course no more than any other sinner, ourselves included.

Jesus came so that ALL sinners could be saved, and accepting Christ is far more important than yelling at people who are screwing up and receiving just punishment immediately in them.

I agree with your take on what the Christian response should be. You're right in that even if you do believe that Homosexuality is a sin (or dysfuncational or whatever), its their choice and we're all sinners (or have our own dysfunctions).

I do fail to see the correlation of sexual disease and anal rupture and homosexuality though. Their are MANY common stds and conditions that occur for heterosexaul sex too. Its not the homosexuality that increases the occurance of stds in the homosexual population, its the increase in risky sex. Among heterosexuals that engage in risky sex, they have just as a high of rates of stds as homosexuals.



 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
26God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

The sin committed by the people Paul is talking about is the worship of false idols. The Romans had been introduced to the xian god; yet they continued their pagan worship rituals/ worship of (according to Paul) false idols. As a punishment for this sin, these people began to go against their own nature, i.e., the women had sex with women as they normally would with men, etc. It is a misreading of Paul to say the sin is homosexuality.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
The above is a condemnation of people going against their natures. It would certainly be against the nature of heterosexual people to engage in homosexual sex. How ever the above says nothing about people for whom it is "natural" to be attracted sexually to people of the same gender.
no, it's a condemnation of people going against nature, not there own nature.
Fighting your own sin nature and accepting the nature of God is what the Christian walk is about.

Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

homosexual sex is a sin, you receive the punishment for said sin simply by engaging in it, looks like these folks had trouble with stds or anal rupturing or any number of other problems associated with homosexual sex.

But the real questions Christians should ask is: does this mean we should be mean to/repress those who engage in homosexual sex, the answer is of course no more than any other sinner, ourselves included.

Jesus came so that ALL sinners could be saved, and accepting Christ is far more important than yelling at people who are screwing up and receiving just punishment immediately in them.

I agree with your take on what the Christian response should be. You're right in that even if you do believe that Homosexuality is a sin (or dysfuncational or whatever), its their choice and we're all sinners (or have our own dysfunctions).

I do fail to see the correlation of sexual disease and anal rupture and homosexuality though. Their are MANY common stds and conditions that occur for heterosexaul sex too. Its not the homosexuality that increases the occurance of stds in the homosexual population, its the increase in risky sex. Among heterosexuals that engage in risky sex, they have just as a high of rates of stds as homosexuals.

sorry if it seemed i was blaming homnosexuals for STDs, i was simply troing to point out that the permsicuous sin agains there own flesh and quickly see the conseqences: strate gay or plushey.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
26God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

The sin committed by the people Paul is talking about is the worship of false idols. The Romans had been introduced to the xian god; yet they continued their pagan worship rituals/ worship of (according to Paul) false idols. As a punishment for this sin, these people began to go against their own nature, i.e., the women had sex with women as they normally would with men, etc. It is a misreading of Paul to say the sin is homosexuality.
actually God was talking about those that ignore existence itself proves that there is a God, and then lists what those who ignore this do and are given to, this includes worship of anything but God and being inflamed with lust to the point that they even ignore the natural order of things.

You see, sex outside of marriage is wrong no matter how you go about it, he was simply saying that these people where so full of lust that they couldn?t even control themselves to be natural in there expressions of it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
That's pretty funny, shira posting about religous tolerance. Hilarious in fact. :p
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
The above is a condemnation of people going against their natures. It would certainly be against the nature of heterosexual people to engage in homosexual sex. How ever the above says nothing about people for whom it is "natural" to be attracted sexually to people of the same gender.
no, it's a condemnation of people going against nature, not there own nature.

Well, that's your reading of it. I take a different meaning from the text.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Fighting your own sin nature and accepting the nature of God is what the Christian walk is about.

Rubbish. That is what Aquinas and natural law is about. That bullsh1t philosophy didn't come about until the middle ages. My own nature is the nature of god, and it is homosexual.

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
The above is a condemnation of people going against their natures. It would certainly be against the nature of heterosexual people to engage in homosexual sex. How ever the above says nothing about people for whom it is "natural" to be attracted sexually to people of the same gender.
no, it's a condemnation of people going against nature, not there own nature.
Fighting your own sin nature and accepting the nature of God is what the Christian walk is about.

Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

homosexual sex is a sin, you receive the punishment for said sin simply by engaging in it, looks like these folks had trouble with stds or anal rupturing or any number of other problems associated with homosexual sex.

But the real questions Christians should ask is: does this mean we should be mean to/repress those who engage in homosexual sex, the answer is of course no more than any other sinner, ourselves included.

Jesus came so that ALL sinners could be saved, and accepting Christ is far more important than yelling at people who are screwing up and receiving just punishment immediately in them.

I agree with your take on what the Christian response should be. You're right in that even if you do believe that Homosexuality is a sin (or dysfuncational or whatever), its their choice and we're all sinners (or have our own dysfunctions).

I do fail to see the correlation of sexual disease and anal rupture and homosexuality though. Their are MANY common stds and conditions that occur for heterosexaul sex too. Its not the homosexuality that increases the occurance of stds in the homosexual population, its the increase in risky sex. Among heterosexuals that engage in risky sex, they have just as a high of rates of stds as homosexuals.

sorry if it seemed i was blaming homnosexuals for STDs, i was simply troing to point out that the permsicuous sin agains there own flesh and quickly see the conseqences: strate gay or plushey.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
26God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

The sin committed by the people Paul is talking about is the worship of false idols. The Romans had been introduced to the xian god; yet they continued their pagan worship rituals/ worship of (according to Paul) false idols. As a punishment for this sin, these people began to go against their own nature, i.e., the women had sex with women as they normally would with men, etc. It is a misreading of Paul to say the sin is homosexuality.
actually God was talking about those that ignore existence itself proves that there is a God, and then lists what those who ignore this do and are given to, this includes worship of anything but God and sexual perversions.

homosexuality is not the sin; it is the punishment. (the sin is the continuing worship of idiols, etc. even after the alleged/ supposed true god has been revealed). it is a misreading of the text to use Paul as some kind of biblical injunction against homosexuality as practiced by constitutional homosexuals.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If you study the Bible you will find that a man is to have sexual relations with only the wife he is married to. This is sometimes referred to the law of Chastity. Anything else is a sin. You can also study the part of the old testament before God Destroys Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. The story goes like this:

Abraham had a nephew named Lott. Their herds were too large and this was causing contention between them. Abraham being a righteous man tells Lott they need to split up and separate their herds to make things more liveable. So lott chooses the plain and Abraham agrees and lives in the more mountainous regions.

After this Lott lives in the town and 2 angels come to visit him. Men knock on the door and they want to have relations with these 2 male angels. Lott even offers to send two of his virgin daughters out instead and the men refuse.

I think this story is in Genesis.

Source of my post is:

www.lds.org
Scripture Search
You can also read the Bible here.
I think you can also have some scriptures read to you as an option.
This helps with the pronounciation of some of the names.
I think if you will read this the story is quite clear and leaves no room for any doubt.
Of course since you brought up the Bible I feel obliged to quote it.
If you dont want to discuss this further it is fine. I dont claim to
be a minister, but only a student of the Word of God.

This I found and is the start of this story in Genesis Chapter 13

THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES CALLED
GENESIS

CHAPTER 13
Abram returns from Egypt?He and Lot part?The Lord will make Abram?s seed as the dust of the earth in number?Abram settles in Hebron.

1 AND Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.

2 And Abram was very arich? in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to aBeth-el?, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-el and bHai?;

4 Unto the place of the aaltar?, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram bcalled? on the name of the LORD.

5 ¶ And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.

6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.

7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram?s cattle and the herdmen of Lot?s cattle: and the aCanaanite? and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.

8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no astrife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be bbrethren?.

9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed aSodom? and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto bZoar?.

11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.

12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and aLot? dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.

13 But the men of aSodom? were bwicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

14 ¶ And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and awestward?:

15 For all the aland? which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

16 And I will make thy aseed? as the bdust? of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt ain? the plain of Mamre, which is in bHebron?, and built there an caltar? unto the LORD.

THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES CALLED
GENESIS

CHAPTER 18
Abraham entertains three holy men?They promise that Sarah shall have a son?Abraham will command his children to do justice and judgment?The Lord appears to him?They discuss the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

1 AND the LORD aappeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three amen? stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bbowed? himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My aLord?, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and awash your feet, and brest yourselves under the tree:

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and acomfort? ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye bcome? to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.

7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.

8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

9 ¶ And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, aSarah? thy wife shall have a bson. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were aold and well stricken in age; and it bceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being aold? also?

13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah alaugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am bold??

14 Is any thing too ahard? for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the btime? of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

16 ¶ And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

17 And the LORD said, Shall I ahide? from Abraham that thing which I do;

18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty anation, and all the bnations of the earth shall be cblessed? in him?

19 For I aknow him, that he will bcommand his cchildren and his dhousehold? after him, and they shall ekeep the way of the LORD, to do justice and fjudgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

20 And the LORD said, Because the acry? of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their bsin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will aknow?.

22 aAnd? the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham bstood yet before the LORD.

23 ¶ And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also adestroy? the brighteous? with the cwicked?

24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not aspare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the aJudge of all the earth do right?

26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty arighteous? within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but adust? and ashes:

28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty?s sake.

30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty?s sake.

32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be aangry?, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will bnot? destroy it for ten?s sake.

33 And the LORD awent his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.


Lot entertains holy men?The men of Sodom seek to abuse Lot?s guests, and are smitten with blindness?Lot sent out of Sodom?The Lord rains brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah?Lot?s daughters preserve his seed in the land.

1 AND there came atwo? bangels? to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant?s house, and tarry all night, and awash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a afeast, and did bake bunleavened bread, and they did eat.

4 ¶ But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5 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 aknow? them.

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 aBehold? now, I have two bdaughters? which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore ccame? they under the shadow of my roof.

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to asojourn?, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with ablindness?, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

12 ¶ And athe? men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bbring? them out of this place:

13 For we will destroy this place, because the acry? of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, aget? you bout? of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that cmocked unto his sons in law.

15 ¶ And when the morning arose, then the aangels hastened bLot?, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being amerciful? unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

17 ¶ And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; alook? not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the bmountain?, lest thou be consumed.

18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:

19 Behold now, thy servant hath found agrace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

21 And he said unto him, See, I have aaccepted? thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.

22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called aZoar?.

23 ¶ The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

24 Then the LORD rained upon aSodom? and upon bGomorrah? cbrimstone? and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

26 ¶ But his wife alooked? back from behind him, and she became a bpillar? of salt.

27 ¶ And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:

28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the asmoke? of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

29 ¶ And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the amountain?, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the afirstborn? said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 aAnd? they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name aMoab?: the same is the father of the bMoabites? unto this day.

38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of aAmmon? unto this day.


 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
The above is a condemnation of people going against their natures. It would certainly be against the nature of heterosexual people to engage in homosexual sex. How ever the above says nothing about people for whom it is "natural" to be attracted sexually to people of the same gender.
no, it's a condemnation of people going against nature, not there own nature.

Well, that's your reading of it. I take a different meaning from the text.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Fighting your own sin nature and accepting the nature of God is what the Christian walk is about.

Rubbish. That is what Aquinas and natural law is about. That bullsh1t philosophy didn't come about until the middle ages. My own nature is the nature of god, and it is homosexual.

look bro, you can do what every you want, we're all sinners, as long as you accept Christ.

But here are some passages that help you understand that you shouldn?t have sex out of marriage and that the Christian walk is of the spirit against the flesh.

8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Tomas Aquinas? I?ve never read anything by him, nor was I told that the spirit vs flesh conflict was essential to our walk in church. Indeed, I found this out reading only the bible.

5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The flesh is to blame the spirit can be free, we all struggle, but don?t try to sell me lust and call it Godly.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
22`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
romans ch1 in 12 translations
That's the literal translation, the suggestion quoted in the OP is a flat-out lie.
But those are clearly marked sanitary guidelines for those people at that time. Sanitary guidelines that would generally be well to be followed.

The real condemnation of homosexual sex is found in the new testament:

NIV, easey to read
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

YLT, the literal translation
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

JKV, standard king james
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
WE, a translation for those who may have trouble understanding english *such as those who try to say that God's got nothing to say about the sinfullnature of homosexual, or any extra martial sex*
26That is why God left them to do the wrong things they wanted to do. Their women left the right way for women and did things that are wrong for women to do.

27Their men also left the right way with women. They wanted to have sex with one another. They did wrong things with other men. Their own bodies were punished because of the wrong things they did.

The message, a clifnotes that tries to get at what this paritcular group thinks is what the text ment. It's less a bible translation and more a bible comentary
26Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either--women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. 27Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men--all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it--emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

Amplified bible, adds the social/contextual information with a fire-and-brimstone spin.
26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

NLT the condosention bible.
26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

ESV someware between kjv and niv
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
NIV-UK a british new international version.. not sure what the diference is
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Darby translation Plymouth Brethren use it.
26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

ASV kindof a translation to americanease
26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;

27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

CEV contemporary english, a translation that intends to be in poor-americnaease
26God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

the intent of the auther is clear no mater how you look at it, do i have to repeat it in Swahili?
26Kwa hiyo, Mungu aliwaachia wafuate tamaa zao za aibu. Hata wanawake wao waliacha matumizi ya asili ya maumbile yao wakatumia miili yao isivyokusudiwa. 27Hali kadhalika wanaume waliacha uhusiano wa asili kati ya waume na wake wakawakiana tamaa wao kwa wao. Wanaume walifanyiana mambo ya aibu, nao waka pata katika miili yao adhabu waliyostahili kama matokeo ya uovu wao.


homosexual sex is a sin, you receive the punishment for said sin simply by engaging in it, looks like these folks had trouble with stds or anal rupturing or any number of other problems associated with homosexual sex.

But the real questions Christians should ask is: does this mean we should be mean to/repress those who engage in homosexual sex, the answer is of course no more than any other sinner, ourselves included.

Jesus came so that ALL sinners could be saved, and accepting Christ is far more important than yelling at people who are screwing up and receiving just punishment immediately in them.

interesting post, kain :thumbsup:

 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0

interesting post, kain
thank you.
homosexuality is not the sin; it is the punishment. (the sin is the continuing worship of idiols, etc. even after the alleged/ supposed true god has been revealed). it is a misreading of the text to use Paul as some kind of biblical injunction against homosexuality as practiced by constitutional homosexuals.
No, it?s clearly misreading the text to say that the act of giving up natural relations was the punishment, when in fact the punishment was ?justly found in themselves? for said act.

Being let free to lust to the point that they chose homosexual sex was part of the consequences if ignoring God, yes, but the punishment received wasn?t that they behaved in a homosexual manner, but rather the fleshly consequences of homosexual sex.

I can see how you may want to read it differently, but an honest appraisal of the statement is most certainly a condemnation of the practice of homosexual sex, and more broadly generally being given to lust.

"homosexuality", being given to longing for same sex relations, does not a sinful homosexual make. The act of engaging in homosexual sex, relenting to lust, is the sin.


but, again, focus:

i screwup, you screw up, we're all fleshy little sacks of gew trying to be ridden by a spirit trying to grow well enough to control the beast. What's important is that none of us are perfect spirits, but through faith in Christ we can be completed spirits no matter what our losses to the flesh.