• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
T
Firstly in response to Polycarp fan’s question, could you translate the Hebrew please to show us from 1 and 2 Samuel what leads you to think gay is ok.

That is not the text, that is a translation of the text (specifically the KJV). Try again. Or, preferably, explain why you trust the KJVs translation of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom".

It says men so we can assume the gender of the group is men. So don’t tell me you don’t think men is a clue to the gender.
"Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" isn't a clue to the gender, and that's the phrase you insist refers to 'men'.

Then don’t disagree with the Bible translations if you don’t know what you are talking about and cant give any alternative versions

I said I wasn't a scholar, not that I didn't know what I was talking about. There aren't any contextual clues that indicate which of the two possible translations of "
Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" is correct.


Wrong. Most people believe Genesis 19 condemns same-sex sex, I agree you don’t.

Which is what I said .

Your opinion is contrary to the majority and the experts, all I am doing is showing why the majority and the experts agree this.
Allegedly. I could just as easily claim the majority of experts agree with me.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Wiccan_chlld,
That is not the text, that is a translation of the text (specifically the KJV).
That’s correct, and the correct translation as well, that why I and most people trust it, we are awaiting for your response.

"Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" isn't a clue to the gender, and that's the phrase you insist refers to 'men'.
The word is 'enowsh

I said I wasn't a scholar, not that I didn't know what I was talking about. There aren't any contextual clues that indicate which of the two possible translations of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" is correct.
source please.

 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Wiccan_chlld,
That is not the text, that is a translation of the text (specifically the KJV).
That’s correct, and the correct translation as well, that why I and most people trust it, we are awaiting for your response.

"Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" isn't a clue to the gender, and that's the phrase you insist refers to 'men'.
The word is 'enowsh

I said I wasn't a scholar, not that I didn't know what I was talking about. There aren't any contextual clues that indicate which of the two possible translations of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" is correct.
source please.

 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

That’s correct, and the correct translation as well,
Justification? As I have repeatedly shown, there are two possible translations, each of which yields a completely different interpretation of the events.

The word is 'enowsh
It's not, but let's have a look at this word anyway:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from 'anash; properly, a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified 'adam); hence, a man in general (singly or collectively)

another, X (blood-)thirsty, certain, chap(-man); divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the English versions, especially when used in apposition with another word.
[/FONT]
http://original.biblebrowser.com/hebrew/582.htm

So this word too can mean man, person, or even stranger.

source please.
For what? The onus is on you to provide the contextual clues.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Wiccan_Child,
Justification? As I have repeatedly shown, there are two possible translations, each of which yields a completely different interpretation of the events.
No you have not shown, you have just said there are. I have shown you several Bible translations that say men.

The word is 'enowsh
It's not, but let's have a look at this word anyway:
Yes it is 'enowsh
which is derived from
'anash;

As I said even under your translation it would make no sense whether either persons nor strangers wanted sex with persons or strangers when it is pronounced wicked and virgin daughters are offered instead. If however its men with men the meaning comes clear as to why virgin daughters are offered instead.
The Bible translations are correct, we are even more sure now than before since they have totally stood up to specific and intense gay theology in recent years.
Gay and lesbian arguments are not interested in the possibility of homosexual practice being error they are only interested in looking for any and every objection to the reality of what the text says. The tactics of those without any Biblical countenance is to spin the situation so as to demand those with the evidence justify it.
The text says men and men makes sense, especially in the light of all the others passages which exclude and condemn homosexual practice.
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟88,510.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
The word is 'enowsh

Nope, sorry - that word is not used to describe the people outside Lot's house - they are, as Wiccan_Child has said, described as anshei.

They describe the people inside Lot's house as 'enowsh - that might be where your confusion is arising from?

David.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

No you have not shown, you have just said there are. I have shown you several Bible translations that say men.
And as I've pointed out (and backed with scholarly sources, I might add), that means squat. Consider:



It means 'a man', but only in poetic language. Like the the 'man' in 'mankind', 'man' refers to all humanity (originally, 'man' meant 'human', and 'wid' and 'wyr' (I think) referred to 'males' and 'females', respectively).

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=0582&t=KJV

And:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from 'anash; properly, a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified 'adam); hence, a man in general (singly or collectively)

another, X (blood-)thirsty, certain, chap(-man); divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the English versions, especially when used in apposition with another word.
[/FONT]
http://original.biblebrowser.com/hebrew/582.htm

Emphasis mine.


The word is 'enowsh
Yes it is 'enowsh
"'enowsh" and "Anshei" are different transliterations of the same word. I was mistaken before. Fortunately, my analysis stands regardless: the word can be (and virturally always is) used in a gender neutral sense.

On the contrary, it makes no sense to offer homosexual men women. If Lot offered them his virgin sons, well, you might have a point.

But in any case, you are ignoring the glaring (and most plausable) scenario: Lot was offering his daughters so that his guests might go unharmed. Such was the value placed on hospitality that Lot would rather his own daughters go with the mob than his guests. That makes sense, regardless of the sex of the mob - sorry, 'group of people'.

The Bible translations are correct, we are even more sure now than before since they have totally stood up to specific and intense gay theology in recent years.
Not really. You exemplify the anti-gay response to pro-gay exegesis: stubbern refusal to acknowledge the facts, preferring instead to cite archaic translations as some sort of counter-argument. Can anyone say 'circular reasoning'? "Your criticism of translation x is false because it does not agree with x".

Have you ever considered that your precious translations might be wrong? (And yes, I have considered that I might be wrong. I just haven't seen any reason to believe so)

Uhuh. Would you like a slice of conspiracy theory to go with that appeal to caricature? We've got some fresh ad hominems to go as well.

The text says men
Nope.

and men makes sense,
Nope.

especially in the light of all the others passages which exclude and condemn homosexual practice.
What other passages? I only see condemnations of Pagan idolatry and apostasy (Romans 1), befouling a woman's bed with non-marital sex (Leviticus 18, 20), etc.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Man, this debating gay sex thing has been around for a long time. Even before the word gay was penned.

Obviously having talked about this subject with Jude, here's Peter's version of poor old Lot and his predicament:


 
Upvote 0

CaDan

I remember orange CF
Site Supporter
Jan 30, 2004
23,298
2,832
The Society of the Spectacle
✟134,677.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All are free to believe the Biblical testimony or not, what I think the problem is mostly here is people simply dont want the Biblical testimony to say what it says because they like sex more.

Behold! The fallacious core!

"People disagree with me not because they have a good faith dispute over the translation and interpretation of Scripture, but because they want to get some of that hot man-on-man action."

Well, there's a little problem with your analysis here. I'm not gay. I'm not even bi. I'm a boring white straight guy married to a lovely wife. And yet I have a difference of opinion with you about the interpretation of these passages.

That's the little problem. Here's the big problem. You are trying to win an argument via insult. That just will not do. Such behavior is not just a violation of the rules of this site, it is a violation of the usual rules of discourse in civilized settings. It is rude, crude, and-worst of all from your perspective--not very persuasive to your audience.

I advise you to stop such behavior immediately.
 
Reactions: Wiccan_Child
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Very well put. Thank you
 
Upvote 0

Kerwin

Newbie
Aug 20, 2008
269
13
✟23,060.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
So, I hear gay people can recruit straight people to being gay. It should work the other way them, right? So, recruit me to being straight.

It does work the other way around but the individual being so recruited must have a strong faith in God to overcome their slavery to sin. It is also possible that Satan will loosen his hold on an individual in this way for his own reasons.
 
Upvote 0

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It does work the other way around but the individual being so recruited must have a strong faith in God to overcome their slavery to sin. It is also possible that Satan will loosen his hold on an individual in this way for his own reasons.

A sexual orientation is a sin? Seems like this is where we all came in.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
TO CaDan,
Behold! The fallacious core!
That’s just your opinion, mine is as I put it
Well, there's a little problem with your analysis here.
The quote you gave is not my analysis, to which are you referring?
I'm not gay. I'm not even bi. I'm a boring white straight guy married to a lovely wife. And yet I have a difference of opinion with you about the interpretation of these passages.
Then I would say it is just disbelief as the texts are clear enough overall there are a dozen passages which tell us what most Christians and most scholars can see.
That's the little problem. Here's the big problem. You are trying to win an argument via insult.
No, my opinion as to the motive you may find insulting but I am merely believing the Bible, you are not.
And don’t bother with the violation of the rules, try not misquoting me, and giving some evidence yourself.
 
Upvote 0

SallyNow

Blame it on the SOCK GNOMES!
May 14, 2004
6,745
893
Canada
✟33,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Watch Pirates of the Caribean several times.

If that doesn't make you straight then go to a doctor and have them remove the parts of the brain that control sexual desire. It may make you a zombie, and it won't actual make you straight, but it will make it easier for you to pretent to be straight. Well, if you weren't turned into a zombie.
 
Upvote 0
O

onemessiah

Guest


lol....um, k....
 
Upvote 0

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Cool. That's about the weirdest thing I've seen on this subforum but I kinda like your humor.

Um ...that WAS humor, wasn't it ...?
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest

And a hundred years ago it was plain to anyone reading the bible and to Christian scholars agreed that blacks were a socially inferior race. Those who disagreed were obviously being mislead and stuck in their own denial and disbelief.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
And a hundred years ago it was plain to anyone reading the bible and to Christian scholars agreed that blacks were a socially inferior race. Those who disagreed were obviously being mislead and stuck in their own denial and disbelief.

But equal rights for Blacks is COMPLETELY different to the idea of equal rights for homosexuals!
 
Upvote 0