The text does not say mob,
Correct. The text
describes a mob.
mob is your translation, the Bible translations say men.
Some do. Others do not. Which ones are right?
If the text wanted to say mob it could have used quahal as in Eziekiel 16:40 “They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords” as company is translated mob in the NIV.
...
Seriously?
Your own quote shows that the word 'quahal' can be translated any number of ways. A 'company' and a 'mob' are two different things (the former implies a cohesive military group, the latter a gaggle of belligerents).
A group of people with semi-hostile intent is a mob. That's a simple fact. If you don't like the word, we can use another word. I'm not really bothered: what we call the group of people is irrelevant.
I can see why you want to use mob as if one says mob it sounds like it isn’t homosexual practice.
What? How on
Earth does it stop being 'homosexual practice' if we call the group of people a mob? Like I have said a number of times now (and I grow weary of repeating myself): I don't care. I don't care what we call them. Call them a 'murder of crows' or a 'bookshelf', if it makes you feel better.
This line of inquiry is getting tiresome. Why are you so hung up on the word 'mob'?
But as the text says men we know it is.
Except it doesn't.
And you have made the same illogical claim as others, Lot offers virgin daughters instead of the wicked act intended against the men.
Indeed. But what was wicked? Two men were having consensual intercourse? The mob - sorry, 'pride of lions' - (gang) raping Lot's guests? The gross inhospitality
It says exactly of the sort, the Bible quotes I have given are the English translations.
Exactly: they are attempts at
translating the text. They are not excerpts from the text itself. And given the linguistic chasm between modern English and ancient Hebrew, ambiguous phrases and bygone idioms are going to bugger up any translation attempt. You have no way of knowing whether the translation you picked (NIV, KJV, YLT, etc) is at all accurate. Indeed, in this example alone, I have shown that a key phrase (ד טֶרֶם, יִשְׁכָּבוּ, וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל-הַבַּיִת, מִנַּעַר וְעַד-זָקֵן: כָּל-הָעָם, מִקָּצֶה
can be translated in two subtly different ways, each of which radically alters the moral of the story. Moreover, even if we accurately translate the story, we are still left with the crux of the issue: what, exactly, was Lot condemning? You have given us absolutely no reason to believe that Lot wasn't condemning the inhospitality about to be shown to the guests.
But the revelation is not that the men were a mob, but that they were men wanting sex with men,
No, that's just how you translated the text.
Furthermore, Lot offers his virgin daughters who have not known men! Do you think virgin women are those who have not yet had sex or those who have not yet been gang raped by men and women?
The former. The daughters were virgins, what's your point?
Yes but do you know what men are is the question as the text says men.
Obviously men scares you so but despite the fact that this is the word of God to me, the text says men.
You keep saying that. Where, exactly, does the text say 'men'? The Hebrew language doesn't use Latin characters, so I find that a bit of a stretch, even by you.
My apologies, you need to come up with the evidence.
Of my sex? Sorry, but I don't know how to convince you of that.
