Inked_Nerd: @OP: Despite what you and many others may believe when it comes to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, traditionally, we have been taught that the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for "homosexuality" and other "perverted sëxual behavior". That just may have had a part to play in the destruction of the two cities. But I submit to you that this is not the only or premier reason for it, if it had a part to play in it at all. Let's just deal with the text shall we? As the story goes in Genesis 19:1-11, two angels arrived at Sodom at night, and Lot was the one sitting at the gate of the city. He bowed before them and asked them to stay at his house to wash their feet and spend the night [which was common custom in those days when dealing with strangers. It was a show of good hospitality]. When they refused, he insisted that they go to his house and he prepared a meal for them. Before they all tore it down for the night, all the "men" from every part of the city came and bum rushed the house, asking about the two. The crowd insisted that they be brought out so that they could "know" or Be Intimate with them. Lot goes out and pleads with these "men" not to do this wicked thing, and asks them to take his daughters and have their way with them. The "men" of the city pressed their way and accused Lot of trying to be "all that" when he was just a stranger in their city himself. They threatened to do worse to him than they would do to the angels if they weren't brought out to them. It got so bad, the "men" tried to break down the door. But luckily, the angels had Lot's back and pulled him back inside the house and struck all SODOM AND GOMORRAH the "men" outside with blindness so they couldn't find the door [paraphrasing mine].

Now this is the deal. Iif you are gonna study scripture, you need to study it in its proper context and with the right spirit. You can't be trying to prove a point or be "theologically correct" in a debate. You have to be searching the heart and mind of "God" for the truth so you can properly use it to help yourself, and to help others. The Bible says, "All scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness", II Timothy 3.16. Nowhere is "abuse" and "used for debate and political gain" mentioned. The Word, even when used in rebuke or discipline, is meant to edify or build people up and not tear them down. With that being said, it is important to realize that the Old Testament was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew. And the New Testament was written in Greek. And to properly ascertain the true meaning and spirit of the text you must go back to the original language. Let me break it down to you.

The angels came into the city and Lot was sitting at the gate [that's what the scripture says]. And when they approached him, he bowed before them and invited them into his home thus offering them proper hospitality [which was common in that time period]. After they all ate dinner and were about to go to bed, the "men" from every corner of the city surrounded Lot's house insisting that he bring the two angels out.

Now, the Hebrew word for "men" in this particular text is "enowsh", defined "mortals [as in Adam; humanity; people; congregation; male and female" not just "males" as with the Hebrew word "iysh," as some would like you to believe. The people wanted to "know" the men [or angels]. Now, this is the tricky part. The Hebrew word for "know" is "yada", meaning to properly ascertain by seeing; observing or reflecting; or to know by experiencing. And in this text, there is no differentiation. The Bible, in this particular text, does not say either/or. So one cannot logically, or correctly say that the male population of Sodom wanted to "Be Intimate" with the angels as traditionally thought. We might also add that in the Bible, the Hebrew word "yada", meaning "to know" is used 943 times. Of those times, only 10 have a sëxual connotation. Therefore, the likelihood of it having a intimate meaning in this text is very slim. This is where the debate comes in. One school of thought uses the fact that Lot offered his daughters to the crowd and pleads with them to have their way, but not to do "this wicked thing" to the men as proof that their intent was to have sëx. Another school says that the daughters or women were "property" [like women were in that time], and he was offering them as slaves to the crowd. When in all actuality, Lot could have become wealthy by receiving "dowries [or money]" for his daughters when their hand was asked in marriage. One school of thought says the "men [meaning males]" of the city were sex perverts and sought after the men with lustful intent. Another says that the men were trying to figure out if these "men" were spies who knew Lot, and wanted to make sure they weren't in the city to try to take over. There are other issues that can be introduced and addressed here. Like the fact that when the men of the city were victorious in war or in a conquest, they would often beat and violation the men they defeated as to exercise ultimate dominion over them. Thus making them no more important or valuable to society than women or "property". This was a humiliating and emasculating experience for any man to endure.

Let me also throw in that in that time, common practice was to question visitors about their journey and their intent as to determine if they were spies and if they were trying to take the city by force. The "men" of the city were keepers of the cities in which they lived and were responsible for it's protection. And the arguments go on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Nobody really cares that the Bible explicitly says why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness 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.", Ezekiel 16.49-50. And if you really STUDY the Word, you will remember that God was already gonna destroy the cities BEFORE the angels even got there. The truth about Sodom and Gomorrah is, GOD JUDGES SIN [anything causing spiritual separation from God]!!! Mind you, in no way am I trying to get you to see MY personal point of view, nor am I trying to decide FOR you what the message of this story is as it relates to your life. I am just presenting information in hopes that you will understand the true Biblical account. We've already discussed the often argued and debated points of the story. And we've discovered that what we have all heard and been taught isn't necessarily the "whole truth" of the matter. In fact, in some cases, I believe we have been taught the WRONG thing altogether. Here are some other points of consideration in helping you determine what's really going on here. First let's consider the actual names of the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah. The name "Sodom" comes from the Hebrew word "Cedom [pronounced: sed-ome'] which means to scorch, or burnt. And the name "Gomorrah" is " 'Amorah [pronounced: am-o-raw' "] meaning a ruined heap, as in gathering things into a heap for burning. Now, since this is what happened to the cities, could these names have been given to them AFTER the fact? Some theologians argue that these two cities were called Sodom and Gomorrah after their destruction and were not the original names thereof. If this is so, what were there actual names? Further along these lines, let's consider the word "sodomite" which is often used by some to describe same gender loving people. Yes, the word is in the Bible as we know it today. And it has been very loosely translated as "gay" in some versions of the Scripture. The word is used twice in the Old Testament of King James version of the Bible, and several times in the New Testament. But if you look in the Hebrew and Greek texts…. the word "sodomite" isn't found at all. Let me elaborate, in Deuteronomy 23.17, the text reads: "There shall be no LovePeddler of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." And, II Kings 23.7 reads: "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove". Now if you look up "LovePeddler" in Hebrew, the word is "k'deshah", meaning pröstitute [temple pröstitute in this case]. And the word "sodomite(s)" is "kadesh", the male version of the word "k'deshah". This says there were both male and female temple LovePeddlers who sold their bodies in worship of the fertility goddess Asherah. God was saying in these texts that His people should not engage in this kind of activity, thus breaking the law forbidding idol worship. So in these scriptures, idol worship is the thing being forbidden. In English, we get our word "sodomy" from the word "sodomite" in the Bible. And the definition of the word varies. In this country there are laws forbidding sodomy, and the definitions differ from state to state. Some get so extreme as to say that anything other than womanly heterosexual sex is sodomy. So I suppose by this definition, all other kinds of sex between consenting adults is not only illegal, but is also forbidden by Scripture and participants thereof are going to hell! Also, If you read from Genesis 14, you will discover that during the time of this story, the cities [to include neighboring cities] were engaged in a war. This had to have created a social climate where everyone was on alert. Anyone foreign to the city or to the region was held suspect and could be considered a spy. There was intense need amongst the townspeople to feel safe and secure. Thus the need for the gates surrounding the cities and the posted watchmen [remember Lot was the gatekeeper in this story]. Think about it, you live in a city who was just engaged in war. The night a NON-NATIVE of the city is trusted to watch the gate [thus controlling traffic in and out], he lets two people that NOBODY knows into the city and even more so BEHIND CLOSED DOORS FOR THE NIGHT IN HIS HOUSE! Certainly this raised some eyebrows and caused some suspicion. Lastly, in Genesis 18.20-19.29, NOWHERE is the word "abomination" found. The story specifies that "the sin of Sodom was grievous to God" and that's it. When cross-referencing this scripture, the prophet Ezekiel mentions an unnamed abomination. Careful study will reveal that the word "abomination" was not defined until the law was given in Leviticus, and a great number of things were considered to be abomination. Therefore, when looking at this story, one cannot look to the Levitical definition of the word in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah because all the cities of the region were destroyed BEFORE the law was even given. In most cases, outside of he law, the word "abomination" is used when describing acts associated with idol worship, and thus were considered by the Hebrew people as unclean. Proverbs 6.16-19 gives a list of the things that God deems abominable…"a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, feet that are swift to do mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that sows discord among the bretheren". Nowhere in this list is homosexuality mentioned.

what do you think.

goshap: what do you think.

@Goshen360 i think the op has a point

The men of Sodom came with the intention of 'knowing' the angels and Lot offered his daughters. It is obvious that he intended using his daughters to serve the purposes the men of Sodom needed the angels for. Now what would they have done to Lot's daughters if they had accepted Lot's offer? Interview them? are we to assume that the men of Sodom were so dumb that they could use intimacy inter-changeably with interview? C'mon. Lot asked them not to do this wicked thing. what could be wicked about an interview?

Are we to believe Lot took them for Spies (He didn't know they were angels i'm sure we all know) and was trying to cover up for them and help them search out and destroy the city that had given him prosperity in the first place? Otherwise why would he ask the men of Sodom not to this wicked thing? what was he saving them from? death or intimate molestation?

This is a poor attempt at looking for loopholes in scripture to justify homosexuality. I know the issue of homosexuality is a touchy point but trying to turn the story of Sodom and Gomorrah on its head to support this position is plain dishonesty.

My judgement: Hogwash

Who am i to judge the writer

Yooguyz: @Goshen360 i think the op has a point

Which one be my name you come dey mention naw? Na me be the OP ni?

@ OP, there's absolutely nothing to justify homosexual in scripture. Check the NT, the book of Romans, there's reference to Sodom there, therefore, it was homosexual they committed then.

The only thing is, there wasn't exact word to describe the act then, hence, it was "men laying with men". As the NT was written, words to fit the acts had evolved and was used. So, you need to do word study along and ask simple common sense questions.

goshap: what do you think.

I think u have failed WOEFULLY, so God destroyed Sodom just bc they wanted to investigate d 2 'strangers' ?

Goshen360:

Which one be my name you come dey mention naw? Na me be the OP ni?

[quote author=Goshen360]

every spirit of miss-representation, die by fire, die by fire, die, die, die o die o, by fire by force, da da da da die o, u don fail, u no fit see our bros o, Goshen nwa, 40 days fasting, eat only ice blocks and petrol, no mind them, ah ah ah ah ah.

Goshen360:

Which one be my name you come dey mention naw? Na me be the OP ni?

sowie i thought goshap/Goshen360 were the same handle. I heard Obadiah777 saying something like that sometime ago.

Obadiah777: AND TO SHOW
YOU HOW INSANE THIS FOO-L
CALLED GOSHEN IS, HE IS
ANSWERING HIS OWN
QUESTION WITH HIS OWN
DOUBLE ID. HE IS GOSHEN
AND HE IS GOSHAP. THE MAN
HAS TOTALLY LOST WHATS
LEFT OF HIS DAYUM MIND. HE
IS CLEARLY AN INSANE
FELLOW

www.nairaland.com/1235103/contending-false-heretic-teachings-obadiah777/1

sorry again i thought it was you

^ Okay bro, heaven is my witness and goshap too said it on that same thread, we are not same person.

saintvc: Who am i to judge the writer

please o,not the writer but the articule.

christemmbassey: I think u have failed WOEFULLY, so God destroyed Sodom just bc they wanted to investigate d 2 'strangers' ?

if i were sure of my own conviction with respect to this article,i would never had asked for anyones judgement.i left an open mind here so as to get more views.MA GUY BECAREFUL .

There three ways to analysis the scripture in Hebrew which is its original language namely 1.GEMATRIA 2.NOTARIGON 3.TEMURA.(I don’t want explain this methods cause in not permitted too, I’m just stating )but it is used mostly by biblical scholars and monk, especially the ancient wise men, today its no longer common in Christianity cause Christians want for their pastors to do the job for them, and the famous excuse that his God filled and has the holy spirit.
This are the three method to analysis it or else you’ll just be reading the scripture from the surface alone without getting its hidden meaning. After all the bible itself say “do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample on it” underline that word trample and replace with undermine its value or miss use, now what makes you thing the bible was written plainly?, word for word, sentence for sentence, meaning for meaning, there should be parts of the bible meant for the elite not just anybody.
Now the writer of that article attempted to go through those method too analysis that event, I read that article my morals and guts stood still ,I’m even afraid to study it myself not for fear of other but fear of what I might find that’s why I brought that article here.
This article is not for two types of people 1.Church bench warmers (this article is not for you), 2. The morally inclined for this firm reasons
-{ church bench warmers;- you are not equipped enough to handle this, you follow word for word and you pastors mouth, religiously speaking you have not mind of your own ,even when you do your mind might not be equipped enough to handle this}
-{morally inclined;-you’re the type that follow the bible based on moral context ,you might even end up arguing with the holy spirit that’s if you have it just because of you based moral ,you’re the 21st century version of that apostle that God said too, “do not call that which I have called clean ,unclean}.

i did not come here to rally for homosexuality,just want some to look at that context well ,provide evidence n rebuke it,if u can.
N dnt quote bibical morals 4 me.