Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

[Jon-E]

It appears that I erred by posting the Leviticus and Deuteronomy study in a separate thread. So, I'll place it here.

Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 23:17

Deuteronomy first and Leviticus second. Since the ERV, like the KJV uses the word "sodomite" in the passage, and keeping with the goal of not using the labels, I'm going to insert in each place the definition of the Hebrew words.

"There shall be no female temple prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a male temple prostitute of the sons of Israel." (Deut 23:17 ERV)

"Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore(zanah), or the wages of a dog(keleb), into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." (Deut 23:18, ERV)
or possibly more clear
"You must not allow a common prostitute’s fee, or the pay of a male prostitute, to be brought into the house of the Lord your God in fulfilment of any vow, for both of them are abominable to the Lord your God." (Deut 23:18, REB)

The definitions used in v 17 above come from the Brown-Driver-Biggs Lexicon . The female temple prostitute is the Hebrew qdeshah and Strong's defines it "(technically) a female shrine prostitute devoted to sexual idolatry." The male temple prostitute is the Hebrew qadesh and Strong's defines it "(technically) a male shrine prostitute devoted to sexual idolatry". The male temple prostitute is found in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7. The Hebrew for male temple prostitute is also found in Job 36:14 translated "the unclean in the "KJV & ERV; but in the NRSV it is rendered "shame" with margin note (Heb ends among the temple prostitutes) and the REB translates as "male prostitutes".

The Hebrew for "female temple prostitute" in v17 is qdeshah and is used only 3 other times in the OT. The Hebrew translated "whore" v18, in the ERV and "common prostitute" in the REB is zanah and it is found 82 times in the OT. The exact meaning of v18 is not certain in details, but it is clear that fees from any prostitute, male or female was never to be brought into the temple, for both the prostitutes and the fees are an abomination(to`ebah) to God. Verse 18 appears to address secular prostitutes by the change in Hebrew wording.

Study of the Leviticus passage.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22, ERV)

The book of Leviticus was law specifically for Israel as seen in two clear passages:

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV) *this v34 is the last verse of the book of Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:22 is nowhere quoted for Christians in the NT. The command "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is found several times in the NT for Christians and it is a quote from Lev. 19:18b. But, it is for Christians because it is given to us in the New Covenant, not because it is somewhere in the OT or in Leviticus.

Some make a point that in the Septuagint, the Greek koites for bed (marriage bed) found in v22; is half of the word arsenokoites translated "abusers of themselves with men" in 1 Cor. 6:9; therefore it seems to be thought it is 'almost' like a quote. Such comparisons are risky when comparing the Greek of the Septuagint translation and the NT Greek. In the Septuagint, the rape of Tamar by Amnon in chapter 13 of 2 Samuel is called "love" using the Greek word agape, v15. I do not think any Christian wishes to equate rape with agape love.

Leviticus chapter 18 must be seen in its full context. The chapter starts in this manner:

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their statutes." (Lev 18:3, ERV)

They are being separated from the "doings" of Egypt and Canaan. This is about being separate and apart from the world to the LORD. The word "statutes" in v3 is the Hebrew chuqqah and viewing how the word is used it is clearly a word of religious ritual, rites. In Exodus 12 the Passover is chuqqah, a rite. The continual burning of the lamp in the "tent of meeting", Ex. 27:21 is chuqqah. The word is a religious word. Then in Lev. 18:22 itself is the word "abomination" which is the Hebrew to`ebah, and again this is a word mainly of religious ritual. The incest in this chapter reminds one of the the incest practiced by the families of the Pharaohs, who were considered gods. Then in v23 bestiality is mentioned and women engaged in ritual sex with goats in Egypt. Because of the religious connotations of the Hebrew words used here, it is clear that v22 is referring to the "male temple prostitutes" that were prohibited in Deut. 23:17; where in v18 it was also called "abomination".

Verse 22 is between two verses clearly condemning works of idolatry:

"And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion." (Lev 18:21-23, ERV)

Verse 21 condemns the sacrifice of children to Molech and v23 condemns the known idolatrous act of bestiality. The 19th century Keil & Delitzsch commentary states on this verse:

"Lying with animals was connected in Egypt with the worship of the goat; at Mendes especially, where the women lay down before he-goats (Herodotus, 2, 46; Strabo, 17, p. 802). Aelian (nat. an. vii. 19) relates an account of the crime being also committed with a dog in Rome; and according to Sonnini, R. 11, p. 330, in modern Egypt men are said to lie even with female crocodiles."

It seems clear that for the Israelites, to whom this law in v22 is directed, are prohibited from being male temple prostitutes. Deut. 23:17 states the female temple prostitute and the male temple prostitute are equally abominations to God. Since this verse is not quoted for Christians in the NT, it is not a command for Christians, but idolatry of any kind is condemned in the NT. This chapter 18 of Leviticus appears to be part of what God condemns in the following:

"When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to possess them, and thou possessest them, and dwellest in their land; take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods." (Deut 12:29-31, ERV)

 

[Gardenias]

The issue is that many mainstream denominations say that homosexuality is not sin. Christians who speak out against the abomination are attacked. It's hardly surprising. Invariable the most hostility comes from homosexuals who hate to be confronted with their sinful lifestyle. No sin is better or worse. However, few try to whitewash their evil like homosexuals. Who would say that adultery is OK? After all, adulterers supposedly love each other. Who would say that it is OK to steal or murder?

Sin can be forgiven, but not if the sin is not acknowledged and confessed.

I do agree with sin can be forgiven if it is acknowledged.
I hate that churches are white washing any sin these days.
I attended a church with some relatives once.
I was shocked!!!
My cousins wife was sitting in a pew by herself,while my cousin, her husband was sitting with his young mistress in another pew.
The mistress was the deacon's daughter and lived at home.

This was some 40 years ago. Sin is fully accepted by most now BC of political correctness and fear of offending others!
Jesus accepted people with their sins and said" Now go and sin no more ".

We may as well face it " churches" are mostly a part of the world....Satan's realm.

 

[shittim]

It appears that I erred by posting the Leviticus and Deuteronomy study in a separate thread. So, I'll place it here.

Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 23:17

Deuteronomy first and Leviticus second. Since the ERV, like the KJV uses the word "sodomite" in the passage, and keeping with the goal of not using the labels, I'm going to insert in each place the definition of the Hebrew words.

"There shall be no female temple prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a male temple prostitute of the sons of Israel." (Deut 23:17 ERV)

"Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore(zanah), or the wages of a dog(keleb), into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." (Deut 23:18, ERV)
or possibly more clear
"You must not allow a common prostitute’s fee, or the pay of a male prostitute, to be brought into the house of the Lord your God in fulfilment of any vow, for both of them are abominable to the Lord your God." (Deut 23:18, REB)

The definitions used in v 17 above come from the Brown-Driver-Biggs Lexicon . The female temple prostitute is the Hebrew qdeshah and Strong's defines it "(technically) a female shrine prostitute devoted to sexual idolatry." The male temple prostitute is the Hebrew qadesh and Strong's defines it "(technically) a male shrine prostitute devoted to sexual idolatry". The male temple prostitute is found in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7. The Hebrew for male temple prostitute is also found in Job 36:14 translated "the unclean in the "KJV & ERV; but in the NRSV it is rendered "shame" with margin note (Heb ends among the temple prostitutes) and the REB translates as "male prostitutes".

The Hebrew for "female temple prostitute" in v17 is qdeshah and is used only 3 other times in the OT. The Hebrew translated "whore" v18, in the ERV and "common prostitute" in the REB is zanah and it is found 82 times in the OT. The exact meaning of v18 is not certain in details, but it is clear that fees from any prostitute, male or female was never to be brought into the temple, for both the prostitutes and the fees are an abomination(to`ebah) to God. Verse 18 appears to address secular prostitutes by the change in Hebrew wording.

Study of the Leviticus passage.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22, ERV)

The book of Leviticus was law specifically for Israel as seen in two clear passages:

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV) *this v34 is the last verse of the book of Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:22 is nowhere quoted for Christians in the NT. The command "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is found several times in the NT for Christians and it is a quote from Lev. 19:18b. But, it is for Christians because it is given to us in the New Covenant, not because it is somewhere in the OT or in Leviticus.

Some make a point that in the Septuagint, the Greek koites for bed (marriage bed) found in v22; is half of the word arsenokoites translated "abusers of themselves with men" in 1 Cor. 6:9; therefore it seems to be thought it is 'almost' like a quote. Such comparisons are risky when comparing the Greek of the Septuagint translation and the NT Greek. In the Septuagint, the rape of Tamar by Amnon in chapter 13 of 2 Samuel is called "love" using the Greek word agape, v15. I do not think any Christian wishes to equate rape with agape love.

Leviticus chapter 18 must be seen in its full context. The chapter starts in this manner:

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their statutes." (Lev 18:3, ERV)

They are being separated from the "doings" of Egypt and Canaan. This is about being separate and apart from the world to the LORD. The word "statutes" in v3 is the Hebrew chuqqah and viewing how the word is used it is clearly a word of religious ritual, rites. In Exodus 12 the Passover is chuqqah, a rite. The continual burning of the lamp in the "tent of meeting", Ex. 27:21 is chuqqah. The word is a religious word. Then in Lev. 18:22 itself is the word "abomination" which is the Hebrew to`ebah, and again this is a word mainly of religious ritual. The incest in this chapter reminds one of the the incest practiced by the families of the Pharaohs, who were considered gods. Then in v23 bestiality is mentioned and women engaged in ritual sex with goats in Egypt. Because of the religious connotations of the Hebrew words used here, it is clear that v22 is referring to the "male temple prostitutes" that were prohibited in Deut. 23:17; where in v18 it was also called "abomination".

Verse 22 is between two verses clearly condemning works of idolatry:

"And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion." (Lev 18:21-23, ERV)

Verse 21 condemns the sacrifice of children to Molech and v23 condemns the known idolatrous act of bestiality. The 19th century Keil & Delitzsch commentary states on this verse:

"Lying with animals was connected in Egypt with the worship of the goat; at Mendes especially, where the women lay down before he-goats (Herodotus, 2, 46; Strabo, 17, p. 802). Aelian (nat. an. vii. 19) relates an account of the crime being also committed with a dog in Rome; and according to Sonnini, R. 11, p. 330, in modern Egypt men are said to lie even with female crocodiles."

It seems clear that for the Israelites, to whom this law in v22 is directed, are prohibited from being male temple prostitutes. Deut. 23:17 states the female temple prostitute and the male temple prostitute are equally abominations to God. Since this verse is not quoted for Christians in the NT, it is not a command for Christians, but idolatry of any kind is condemned in the NT. This chapter 18 of Leviticus appears to be part of what God condemns in the following:

"When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to possess them, and thou possessest them, and dwellest in their land; take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods." (Deut 12:29-31, ERV)

Leviticus and deuteronomy.... balh, blah, blah........
We haven't been under the law for 2,000 years.
You have to go to a great erroneous length and to garbage doctrine to get back under the law that Jesus came to free us from.
he was VERY CLEAR that in Him ALL THINGS become new.
blessings to those who are His.

 

[SophieT]

alot of digging going on

have we hit oil yet?

 

[Runningman]

Obviously I'm talking about the words/labels, when discussing the Bible, not persons. The words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined about the 13th century by the church of Rome; and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" created in Germany in the 19th century, coming into English around 1900. We are living in a day when many (maybe 30%) think they fit somewhere in the modern idea of LGBTQ, and some young people are truly confused about it. So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males. I'll be using the 1885 English Revised Version because of its literal accuracy. I'll usually use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for English, since I'm using an older English version. On definition of the Hebrew and Greek I'll use accepted standard reference works.

Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

I don't know if English is your first language, but when someone says they want to "do away with" someone else, the nuance is often that they want to remove, put an end to someone. or kill them. You can verify this claim of what "do away with" means in any dictionary. Your OP doesn't seem to suggest what your title suggests. Are you being passive aggressive?

 

[Rondonmon]

Obviously I'm talking about the words/labels, when discussing the Bible, not persons. The words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined about the 13th century by the church of Rome; and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" created in Germany in the 19th century, coming into English around 1900. We are living in a day when many (maybe 30%) think they fit somewhere in the modern idea of LGBTQ, and some young people are truly confused about it. So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males. I'll be using the 1885 English Revised Version because of its literal accuracy. I'll usually use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for English, since I'm using an older English version. On definition of the Hebrew and Greek I'll use accepted standard reference works.

Sodom:
Lot, being covetous chooses the land toward Sodom because of its fruitfulness, being called "like the garden of the LORD". (Gen. 13:10, ERV)
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13, ERV)

Webster's: "men, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race...Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense", Strong's "Hebrew enowsh a mortal, a man in general". Therefore, Gen. 13:13 would mean the "people" of Sodom were exceedingly wicked, not just the males.

A key verse about "men" and "males" in OT Hebrew:
In Gen. 17:23 is the strange sounding phrase "every male among the men of Abraham's house" where "male" is the Hebrew zakar and "men" is the Hebrew enowsh. It is clear that the English "men" must be seen in context to determine if it means males; or mortals, humans in general.

"But before they lay down, the men(enowsh) of the city, even the men(enowsh) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 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. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters 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; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, 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 drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:4-9, ERV)

The word "men" here means young and old, all the people, male and female. There is no reason to think only males here because it is all the people. This wicked people want to "know them", the angels who appear as men; and we know this has sexual connotations because of Lot's offer to give his virgin daughters to them. Lot addresses his fellow citizens as "brethren", the Hebrew 'ach and Strong's gives "a brother" as the basic meaning, but then adds {used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1).} Webster's defines "brother" literally as male, but definition #2 reads "Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers." When we say "brethren of the church" we don't exclude the ladies. Lot is speaking as we would say "neighbors". Verse nine clearly states an act of violence, "drew near to break the door", in other words this was going to be a rape, and rape is an act of dominance and violence, not sexual desire. In years past I'd have considered rape an act solely committed by males, but in our wicked day it's clear it can apply to both sexes. I can only see attempted rape here in the Sodom record, possibly by the entire city rather than only the males. The Lord GOD tells us what the sin of Sodom was:


The word "men" here means young and old, all the people, male and female. There is no reason to think only males here because it is all the people. This wicked people want to "know them", the angels who appear as men; and we know this has sexual connotations because of Lot's offer to give his virgin daughters to them. Lot addresses his fellow citizens as "brethren", the Hebrew 'ach and Strong's gives "a brother" as the basic meaning, but then adds {used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1).} Webster's defines "brother" literally as male, but definition #2 reads "Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers." When we say "brethren of the church" we don't exclude the ladies. Lot is speaking as we would say "neighbors". Verse nine clearly states an act of violence, "drew near to break the door", in other words this was going to be a rape, and rape is an act of dominance and violence, not sexual desire. In years past I'd have considered rape an act solely committed by males, but in our wicked day it's clear it can apply to both sexes. I can only see attempted rape here in the Sodom record, possibly by the entire city rather than only the males. The Lord GOD tells us what the sin of Sodom was:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, ERV)

No sexual sin is specifically mentioned here, but the sins of "pride" and "haughtiness" are clearly mentioned. Yet there is the word "abomination" that translates the Hebrew to`ebah and Strong's defines it thus: "1(properly) something disgusting; 2(morally, as noun) an abhorrence; 3(especially) idolatry; 4(concretely) and idol." This Hebrew word is found 41 times in Ezekiel, more than any other OT book and it seems to be largely associated with idolatry in Ezekiel, yet 22:11 does connect it with adultery, and again in 33:26. More on this word "abomination" later when looking at Lev. 18:22 and Deut. 23:17.

Jesus spoke of Sodom, and his words spoken to the Jews are:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15, ERV)

One other statement about Sodom is in the NT book of Jude:

"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7, ERV)

Who is being referred to as "these"? It appears to be the angels as I read it. The Revised English Bible clearly translates in that manner:

So what does "strange flesh"(ERV) or "indulged in unnatural lusts"(REB) mean? In the Greek, strange is heteros which Strong's defines as "other or different"; and flesh is sarx which Strong's defines as "flesh (as stripped of the skin)." In Jude 14 the book, Prophecy of Enoch, is mentioned and in that book the story of Gen. 6:1-4 is thought to be about angels, "sons of God"; who have sexual relations with humans, "daughters of men". Since the non-canonical book of Enoch is referenced, I believe the "strange flesh" or "different flesh" refers to the people of Sodom attempting to rape angels, which is clearly a different flesh. The "different flesh" can not mean a human to human, but more fitting to human to angel, see: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes." (1Cor 15:39, ERV)

Isn't pride and a haughty spirit at the base of all violent criminality? Isn't sin very much about pride and a haughty air. We see it daily in minor things, where the normal rules of society are just ignored by those who think it does not apply to them. The healthy person parking in Handicapped Zones; the aggressive, reckless and high speed driving, etc. Prisons are full of people who think society's rules are only for others. The Apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, gives a historical look at what the Jews thought about Sodom, and I'll use the old KJV translation:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

Leviticus 18:22 and Deut. 23:17,18 will be in the next OP. This is taking more space than I had thought.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars—their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Call it what you will, but all SEXUALLY IMMORAL people will go straight to hell without admitting their sins and then REPENTING.

END THREAD/.

 

[Runningman]

Revelation 21:8 But the cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars—their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Call it what you will, but all SEXUALLY IMMORAL people will go straight to hell without admitting their sins and then REPENTING.

END THREAD/.

I wish we could end the thread here, but I feel led to point out to you that Revelation 21:8 doesn't say they go to hell. It says they will go to the lake of fire which is the second death. Now we can end the thread if it's okay with you.

 

[Jon-E]

Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I see these verses as 3 separate occurrences, verse 6 has nothing to do with verse 7. I really don't see how a translator of another translation would do that as this thread suggests it does, or implies. I skimmed over it a little too quickly when I first read it, then when I read the last post just now, I went back and re-read it more intently, I'm like "woah Nellie", what's going on here?

Mofastus, I agree that v5 is not the event in vss6 & 7. But I do think they are connected and it seems many translations render it like that. For instance, the Literal Standard Version published last year, which is a 2020 update of the YLT; writes the verses like this:

"messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness until the judgment of the great day, as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these messengers, having given themselves to whoredom, and having gone after other flesh, have been set before as an example, undergoing the justice of continuous fire." (Jude 1:6-7, LSV)

"You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day. So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7, NET2)

In the KJV and the ERV, v7 is begun with the word "even" which I understand to connect v7 to the prior verse.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males.

You do not need a lengthy dissertation about this. The Bible condemns it as sexual perversion. Period. What Christians should discern is that there are demonic spirits behind this whole LGBTQ movement trying to confuse and corrupt young people in the Western world. Just as there were evil angels engaging in unlawful relations before the Flood, and corrupting humanity. Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be prior to His Second Coming.

 

[Mofastus]

In the KJV and the ERV, v7 is begun with the word "even" which I understand to connect v7 to the prior verse.

all three connect to the context spoken of, but they are still 3 completely different instances, you can't add Egypt to either, why try to add 6 to verse 7 when they are not connected in the happenings of each, the Angels in Sodom and Gomorrah, protected Lot and his family, they did Not go have sex with the inhabitants, they were under direction from God and obedient to their task. to try to include those angels into verse 6 is totally inappropriate to the context, you're trying to use "a" word to connect them? you have what happened in Egypt (verse 5), verse 6, then the destruction of the cities, research what the incident of verse 6 is first, you might see why it cannot connect to verse 7, is all I'm saying...

an overview from biblegateway,com about Jude

Although Jude was very eager to write to his readers about salvation, he felt that he must instead warn them about certain immoral men circulating among them who were perverting the grace of God. The NIV Study Bible says these false teachers were trying to convince believers that being saved by grace gave them license to sin since their sins would no longer be held against them. Jude thought it imperative that his readers be on guard against such men and be prepared to oppose their perverted teaching with the truth about God’s saving grace. Jude says it is imperative that his readers be on guard and be prepared to oppose false teaching with the truth about God’s grace.

here again is where you can't connect them as well, scripture confirms scripture

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

 

[Rondonmon]

I wish we could end the thread here, but I feel led to point out to you that Revelation 21:8 doesn't say they go to hell. It says they will go to the lake of fire which is the second death. Now we can end the thread if it's okay with you.

Reminds me of a line in a movie (North By Northwest) via James Mason, "Semantic's, must we?"

 

[shittim]

want some thread drift, that would be just as good as ending it....... lol
What is your favorite james mason movie?
best wishes

 

[Jon-E]

all three connect to the context spoken of, but they are still 3 completely different instances, you can't add Egypt to either, why try to add 6 to verse 7 when they are not connected in the happenings of each, the Angels in Sodom and Gomorrah, protected Lot and his family, they did Not go have sex with the inhabitants, they were under direction from God and obedient to their task. to try to include those angels into verse 6 is totally inappropriate to the context, you're trying to use "a" word to connect them? you have what happened in Egypt (verse 5), verse 6, then the destruction of the cities, research what the incident of verse 6 is first, you might see why it cannot connect to verse 7, is all I'm saying...

an overview from biblegateway,com about Jude

Although Jude was very eager to write to his readers about salvation, he felt that he must instead warn them about certain immoral men circulating among them who were perverting the grace of God. The NIV Study Bible says these false teachers were trying to convince believers that being saved by grace gave them license to sin since their sins would no longer be held against them. Jude thought it imperative that his readers be on guard against such men and be prepared to oppose their perverted teaching with the truth about God’s saving grace. Jude says it is imperative that his readers be on guard and be prepared to oppose false teaching with the truth about God’s grace.

here again is where you can't connect them as well, scripture confirms scripture

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

Mofastus, my mind must have been asleep and didn't quite grasp what you are saying. Yes, Jude 5 is the event in Exodus, v6 is the event recorded in Gen. 6:1-4. The NET2 begins v7 "So also" drawing the comparison of the sins in v6 to the sins in v7. The NRSV begins v7 with "Likewise", again tying the sins in v6 to explain the sins in v7. So while the events are separate events in time, the comparison is about the sins of the angels as compared to the sins of Sodom.

 

[Gideon300]

I do agree with sin can be forgiven if it is acknowledged.
I hate that churches are white washing any sin these days.
I attended a church with some relatives once.
I was shocked!!!
My cousins wife was sitting in a pew by herself,while my cousin, her husband was sitting with his young mistress in another pew.
The mistress was the deacon's daughter and lived at home.

This was some 40 years ago. Sin is fully accepted by most now BC of political correctness and fear of offending others!
Jesus accepted people with their sins and said" Now go and sin no more ".

We may as well face it " churches" are mostly a part of the world....Satan's realm.

That's one of the reasons I have little to do with the denominational church. The gospel should be offensive. If it does not offend someone, then we have to wonder if it is the gospel. The religious (Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc) stumble over Jesus being the only way to God. The "Greeks", who are the intellectuals, philosophers and sceptics consider the gospel to be foolish. I don't know who said it, but I agree: "Make them glad or make them mad!"

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

I did not see the movie " Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son." , but look at the meta-data from wiki

Writer Leroy F. Aarons (December 8, 1933 – November 28, 2004) was an American journalist, editor, author, playwright, founder of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), ...

Mary Griffith (main character) was born to a highly devout Christian family, and after a minor incident with the police when she was a teenager, she became a fundamentalist. Later she largely abandoned her fundamentalist perspective. Describing her religious beliefs in 2009, she said that "It's humiliating just to go through the Bible and see the fairy tales I believed, like that business about mixing fabrics."[12] Griffith died in 2020, aged 85.[6]

A gay rights activist and antichrist? Come on.

The Law is forever until it is not
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

As quoted from #21. I think you should take the time to read it.
"Such comparisons are risky when comparing the Greek of the Septuagint translation and the NT Greek. In the Septuagint, the rape of Tamar by Amnon in chapter 13 of 2 Samuel is called "love" using the Greek word agape, v15. I do not think any Christian wishes to equate rape with agape love. "

Interlinear is to difficult to copy see https://biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/13-15.htm
2 Samuel 13:15 (KJV) Then Amnon hated[1] her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love[2] wherewith he had loved[3] her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.

Strong's greek from septuagint -see below G3404[1] - Hate G26[2] agape G25[3] agape
the love is where it should be, with dear Samuel.

 

[surfer14]

The problem with making friends with sodomites is that it becomes more difficult for you to condemn sodomy as the bible does. You wind up making all these wishy washy statements rather that just a straight and simple "Sodomy is an affront to God."

 

[shittim]

He has brought home to me how compromise is used by the adversary, a mocking of Isaiah 28 where God speaks of how He often works "Hear a little, there a little".
ymmv

 

[CS1]

The problem with making friends with sodomites is that it becomes more difficult for you to condemn sodomy as the bible does. You wind up making all these wishy washy statements rather that just a straight and simple "Sodomy is an affront to God."

anytime one becomes friend with the world we become and enemy of God

 

[shittim]

That is what scripture teaches, we are to turn away from those who chose to live in darkness.

 

[Jon-E]

Rom.1:18-32 is a narrative of man's rejection of the one true God and thinking himself wise, creates idols in exchange for the One True God. These are God rejecting people, idolaters, who are proud of their own perceived intellect and wisdom. Their continued descent into deeper and deeper depravity is 3 times attributed to "God gave them up" in vs 24,26,28 and all three times the cause or reason reflects back to their ultimate sin of rejecting God and turning to idols. The continuous flow of thought goes back to their rejection of the One True God and exchanging Him with idols.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:26-27, ERV)

1. Women changed "natural use", NRSV "natural intercourse", but did not, could not, change their nature.
2. a. changed "the natural use" KJV, YLT.. Referring to the created order, God's design
b. "exchanged their natural function", Amplified, "exchanged their natural sexual function" ISV, "changed their natural way" AAT by William F. Beck (LCMS)

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature, these women would have the created order, the created sexual function within themselves, but could only change their conduct.

3. It is common to teach that v26 refers to sexual union of women with women, but that violates the directive of 1 Cor. 4:6 ERV, "learn not to go beyond the things which are written". There is nothing here stating women had sex with women. As the English Baptist John Gill wrote in the 18th century, one understanding can be: "by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the 'sodomitical' embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". This would probably refer to oral and anal intercourse of women with men. From this viewpoint, the word "likewise" connecting v27 to v26 also refers to oral and anal intercourse of man with man, unnatural compared to the created order, but created order does not define sin, God's commands do.

4. In v27 men are "leaving" (ERV), "giving up" (NRSV), "having left" (YLT), "forsaking" (Literal translation by Jay P. Green). You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave. This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.' And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

Also, from the 19th century Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:
"But observe how vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."
* To quote this encyclopedia, I had to include the adjective use of the banned words as it was so written.

5. The KJV word "burned" in v27 is the Greek, "G1572 ἐκκαίω ekkaio" and is found only here in the NT, just this one occurrence. A. T. Robertson says it means "to burn out, to set on fire". The NRSV renders it "consumed". From a 19th century Greek scholar, James Robinson Boise, "a much stronger word than the Eng. burned". This is important because the word used for sexual desire translated "burn" referring to a loving couple is totally different: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV) The word "burn" here is the Greek: "G4448 πυρόω puroo" a totally unrelated word to that in Rom. 1:27.

6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715 ὄρεξις orexis". The "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum, not neat categories. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27.

7. The KJV words "working that which is unseemly" in the literal Greek reads "working the unseemliness", from Rev. Alford Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear. The Greek scholar, Boice, I referenced above writes: "the (well-known, notorious) indecency". The sexual perversions of Nero, who lived at the time Paul wrote, come to mind.

8. What is the "error" meant in "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"? From the flow of the entire passage from v18, it would seem to refer to the rejection of the One True God and worshipping idols. The moral degradation described is the horrible descent into the depths of depravity which was sin compounding upon sin, as punishment. Again, Boice in the 19th century writes: "of their error, of their departure (from the true God)". The respected 19th century theologian, Presbyterian Charles Hodge states in his commentary on Romans: "The apostle for the third time repeats the idea that the moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of their apostasy from God. Receiving, he says, in themselves the meet recompense of their error. It is obvious from the whole context that πλάνη here refers to the sin of forsaking the true God; and it is no less obvious that the recompense or punishment of this apostasy was the moral degradation which he had just described." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hdg/romans-1.html

Then the BDAG reads: "Of an erroneous view of God, as exhibited in polytheism, resulting in moral degradation (Wsd 12:24; Ar. 2, 1 al.; Just., D. 47, 1; Tat. 29, 1; Iren., 1, 1, 3 [Harv. I 11, 10]; Did., Gen. 217, 30) Ro 1:27" Yet in this day it is common to dogmatically insist the "error" is male to male sex and the "recompense" is something like AIDS.

The foundational sin, the error, of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols and self-worship which brings about degradation upon degradation to where their outrageous and extreme lust consumes them. The sexual sin is that of males for whom relations with females was their nature, but by being eaten up with lust, consumed by it; they become perverts like Nero.

Paul clearly writes of the same sort of males in Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10; so to get a more full picture of what Paul is describing, the verses from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will be considered next to get the full thought of Paul.