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.
That isn't what is addressed in Scripture. It is RAPING sex acts of the angelic hosts, let's keep this on topic here...Sodom and Gomorrah was about promiscuity, prostitution, rape, etc. NOT what you claim about the act itself, that is preposterous.
You claim things and demand me to cite sources? that is the pot calling the kettle black, but nonetheless, here you go:claiming it is so- does not make it so. please cite source that shows this to be true
You claim things and demand me to cite sources? that is the pot calling the kettle black, but nonetheless, here you go:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm
That interpretation IS NOT commentary! the angelic beings came to earth, and it was said to be of a "strange flesh" since they weren't human.Dave- this is commentary. I gave you the actual greek word defined showing otherwise.
- The phrase translated as "strange flesh" in the original Greek reads: "sarkos heteras." Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" is derived from "heteras." "Strange flesh" has been variously translated in other versions as "perverted sensuality," "unnatural lust," "unnatural sex," "lust of men for other men," "pursued unnatural desire," "sexual sin, even perversion," and (in the NIV) "perversion."
That interpretation IS NOT commentary! the angelic beings came to earth, and it was said to be of a "strange flesh" since they weren't human.
No, it is not commentary, it is INTERPRETATION, big difference. You aren't even debatable because you don't understand the difference. This is backed by Scripture.It is commentary. The fact that they raped angels, does not mean that this line was speaking about angels being raped- that could easily be fornication. I already showed you the definition of the word heteras, and its primary use was to identify the other of a set- homosexual act. Its use throughout the Bible was almost always used in this fashion- the other of a set. This interpretation is consistent- not apologetic for a fringe permissive interpretation.
G
No, it is not commentary, it is INTERPRETATION, big difference. You aren't even debatable because you don't understand the difference. This is backed by Scripture.
That interpretation IS supported...in fact, it is backed in Genesis about the angelic hosts coming to earth, and the raping of them. You clearly do not know the Bible here.When someone gives an unsupported interpretation- that is commentary.
Quoting Scripture, and then making commentary that misses the mark- is not backing your interpretation with scripture.
G
That interpretation IS supported...in fact, it is backed in Genesis about the angelic hosts coming to earth, and the raping of them. You clearly do not know the Bible here.
You don't have a point? If a man has sex w/an angelic being, that is a "strange flesh" (another flesh).Im not debating the angels were raped.
Now can you see past that sign, and on to my point please?
G
You don't have a point? If a man has sex w/an angelic being, that is a "strange flesh" (another flesh).
One of these words is heteros....24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Fornication only carried 3 meanings back in Biblical times, so you are not holding your debate points up. Fornication = adultery, prostitution and incest.It is also fornication.
You are relying on the english word strange to make your point. The greek word is heteras- meaning- the other of the set of 2 as the primary meaning- which is consistent. I have already showed you the definition. When your interpretation is inconsistent- that should send up flags for you.
G
Well no, but there were Angelic beings that came to earth, but that probably somehow correlates in with them talking about Michael the archangel.Although, the context of Jude 1 is revealing.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
(Jude 1)
Is this referring to the apostates lusting after Michael?
That is what my thread is about, isn't it? I'm not ex-gay agenda, trust me on that! I AM gay!I don't suppose, in pursuing what the Bible says about the sin for which Sodom was destroyed, we might consider actually using the Bible, instead of dragging in our own or historical opinions? Specifically Ezekiel 16:49-50.
It's very easy to turn homosexual people into scapegoats -- but read the Scripture. God was angry about quite different things.
Fornication only carried 3 meanings back in Biblical times, so you are not holding your debate points up. Fornication = adultery, prostitution and incest.
I don't suppose, in pursuing what the Bible says about the sin for which Sodom was destroyed, we might consider actually using the Bible, instead of dragging in our own or historical opinions? Specifically Ezekiel 16:49-50.
It's very easy to turn homosexual people into scapegoats -- but read the Scripture. God was angry about quite different things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?