I have no idea where that came from......it reads a bit like the paranoia based propaganda. He isn't calling anyone a hypocrite with that question.....why is it any thought provoking question is seen as an "attack" on Christianity?
Originally Posted by MrPolo
Well...calling people out to be hypocrites isn't an argument one way or another as to whether Scripture is inspired. It tells us nothing about the inspiration of Scripture, and I think Ehrman is using a "Bill Maher" style bait and switch to try to discredit Christianity. There are a lot of great Christians throughout history who have even memorized the Bible. But who knows...I'm only going by what I'm told about the man here by his fans.
Reading the bible is great but doing it without some fundamentals can be more harmful than if it wasn't read at all. Misinformation can be unwittingly spread thus accidental false witnessing about scripture is almost guaranteed.
As an example you gave this one:
Another is claiming homosexuality played a role in the destruction of two unknown cities.
Then I showed you how the historicity of the Bible has proven to be true from archaeology and historical writings over and over again.
Now you come back with:
Please do not put words in my mouth. I didn't claim the bible is inferior nor have I denied the destruction of the cities. There's more but lam short on time at the moment and very short on patience. Again, please do not put words in my mouth
It was you who challenged the fact that homosexuality was involved in the destruction of "two unknown cities."
Let's look at the facts:
Some have wanted to see that the problem that led to the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah was the sin of being inhospitable and that the word "know" in Gen. 19 means "to get acquainted."
We know that this is not so for these reasons:
1. It is true that the Hebrew word, yada, doesn't always mean "to have sex with." However, in the context of Sodom & Gomorrah, it clearly means to have sex. This is confirmed by the fact that 10 of the 12 times that yada is used in Genesis, it refers to sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25).
2. Yada means to know sexually in Gen. 19 because Lot refers to his two virgin daughters as not having "known" a man (19:8). This is obviously a sexual use of the word.
3. We discover the meaning of a word by its context. Here it is sexual because of the wickedness of the city (Gen. 18:20) and the virgins who were offered to satisfy the passions of the men (19:8).
4. "Know" cannot mean only "to get acquainted with" because it is equated with actions that are a "wicked thing" (19:7 NIV).
5. Why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to appease these men if the intent was not sexual. The desire to get acquainted would not demand such a response from Lot. In that day, nobody would have mistaken the intent of the men was to sexually "know" other men (19:5).
6. God pronounced destruction on Sodom & Gomorrah according to Gen. 18:16-33 before the incident of 19:8. Therefore, it is reasonable to contend that God had pronounced judgment on these two cities for sins that they had already committed, i.e. homosexuality, than for a sin of being inhospitable that had not yet been committed.
There is, thus, ample textual evidence for the sin that caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah to be men wanting to "know" men sexually -- homosexuality.
Is this the best argument? I ask because if not I would like to offer the opportunity for that to be presented before I respond.
Originally Posted by OzSpen
RealDeal,
It was you who claimed: As an example you gave this one:
Then I showed you how the historicity of the Bible has proven to be true from archaeology and historical writings over and over again.
Now you come back with: It was you who challenged the fact that homosexuality was involved in the destruction of "two unknown cities."
Let's look at the facts:
Some have wanted to see that the problem that led to the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah was the sin of being inhospitable and that the word "know" in Gen. 19 means "to get acquainted."
We know that this is not so for these reasons:
1. It is true that the Hebrew word, yada, doesn't always mean "to have sex with." However, in the context of Sodom & Gomorrah, it clearly means to have sex. This is confirmed by the fact that 10 of the 12 times that yada is used in Genesis, it refers to sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25).
2. Yada means to know sexually in Gen. 19 because Lot refers to his two virgin daughters as not having "known" a man (19:8). This is obviously a sexual use of the word.
3. We discover the meaning of a word by its context. Here it is sexual because of the wickedness of the city (Gen. 18:20) and the virgins who were offered to satisfy the passions of the men (19:8).
4. "Know" cannot mean only "to get acquainted with" because it is equated with actions that are a "wicked thing" (19:7 NIV).
5. Why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to appease these men if the intent was not sexual. The desire to get acquainted would not demand such a response from Lot. In that day, nobody would have mistaken the intent of the men was to sexually "know" other men (19:5).
6. God pronounced destruction on Sodom & Gomorrah according to Gen. 18:16-33 before the incident of 19:8. Therefore, it is reasonable to contend that God had pronounced judgment on these two cities for sins that they had already committed, i.e. homosexuality, than for a sin of being inhospitable that had not yet been committed.
There is, thus, ample textual evidence for the sin that caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah to be men wanting to "know" men sexually -- homosexuality.
I didn't ask for a ghetto-dr phil-on-crack assessment of my motivation......and this post is going to look even funnier after I respond to the attempt to scapegoat gays for sodom and gomorrah. Then it will be clear to all who does or does not care about a thoughtful exegesis.
Originally Posted by OzSpen
Real Deal,
You have demonstrated that you are not interested in exegetical evidence. This evidence refutes your view but you don't like it.
It was you who challenged the fact that homosexuality was involved in the destruction of "two unknown cities."
It's interesting it's called a "fact" homosexuality was involved. But that's how it works isn't it....believe something enough and it suddenly becomes a "fact." Is it understood why I said the two unknown cities? Is it realized Sodom and Gomorrah aren't the actual names of the cities? Please tell me a Ph.D candidate is aware of that information.......
Let's look at the facts:
Some have wanted to see that the problem that led to the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah was the sin of being inhospitable and that the word "know" in Gen. 19 means "to get acquainted."
Could that be because scripture tells us repeatedly that inhospitality was one of the sins? Even Jesus himself made a direct reference to sodom and gomorrah......and what was the focus? Inhospitality. Just a coincidence or is it possible Jesus was somewhat familiar with the Old Testament?
We know that this is not so for these reasons:
1. It is true that the Hebrew word, yada, doesn't always mean "to have sex with." However, in the context of Sodom & Gomorrah, it clearly means to have sex. This is confirmed by the fact that 10 of the 12 times that yada is used in Genesis, it refers to sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25).
2. Yada means to know sexually in Gen. 19 because Lot refers to his two virgin daughters as not having "known" a man (19:8). This is obviously a sexual use of the word.
3. We discover the meaning of a word by its context. Here it is sexual because of the wickedness of the city (Gen. 18:20) and the virgins who were offered to satisfy the passions of the men (19:8).
4. "Know" cannot mean only "to get acquainted with" because it is equated with actions that are a "wicked thing" (19:7 NIV).
5. Why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to appease these men if the intent was not sexual. The desire to get acquainted would not demand such a response from Lot. In that day, nobody would have mistaken the intent of the men was to sexually "know" other men (19:5).
6. God pronounced destruction on Sodom & Gomorrah according to Gen. 18:16-33 before the incident of 19:8. Therefore, it is reasonable to contend that God had pronounced judgment on these two cities for sins that they had already committed, i.e. homosexuality, than for a sin of being inhospitable that had not yet been committed.
I will respond to each numbered item.
1. That is proof of an agenda versus scholarship. "yada" is used over 940 times in the OT. How many times does it have any kind of loose reference to sex? About a dozen times.....so there was an outright deception to try and make yada mean sex by ignoring how it's used over 920 times with no reference to sex.
2. Lot said his daughters were virgins. When one wants to have sex with another does the person say "Would you like to have virgin with me?" What if someone asks for Virgin Olive oil? Are they asking for a sexual lubricant? What about Extra Virgin olive oil? Does that mean they want two bottles of Virgin Olive oil?
More importantly, if homosexuality was the desire of the people at Lot's door why would he offer females? If they wanted homosexuality then Lot would have knowingly angered them more by offering something they did not want. If a mugger demands your wallet would you take off a shoe and offer it instead?
3. Hmmm...gotta go with pure fluff on that one. Lot offered his daughters to be gang raped, beaten, stabbed, stoned, kicked, spit on.....whatever the crowd wanted to fo with them. Is it understood rape and consentual sex are not the same thing?
4. Whoa.....now I'm seriously beginning to doubt the claim about working on a dissertation. Strong's #3045:
"A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.)" http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/3045.htm
Gee....would "punishment" be on par with "wickedness?" Would..say...punishing strangers simply for being strangers be related to inhospitality?
5. See my numbers 2+3. Why is it the camps who clamor about homosexuality cannot see that if sex was the issue then the would-be crime was rape?
6. Illogical reasoning aside for the moment, can it be demonstrated where homosexuality was directly stated as an activity in S+G in Genesis? But hey, let's not limit our view to just one verse or book for the search...show us a single verse from anywhere in the bible that states homosexuality was in S+G? To avoid any confusion, please do not provide references to ambiguous terms such as "wickedness."
There is, thus, ample textual evidence for the sin that caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah to be men wanting to "know" men sexually--homosexuality.
Linear Mode
