What WAS the sin of Sodom and Gomorrh

[BigChrisfilm]

Jude 1:7

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Clearly, that was why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrh, to say otherwise is to go against scripture.

 

[davedjy]

Yeah, the strange flesh is that they raped the angelic visitors, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you had some Bible knowledge.

Let’s first look at the historic context of Sodom and Gamorrah. The story goes that God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that “all of the people from every quarter” surrounded Lot’s house demanding the release of the visitors so “we might know them” or in other words have sexual relations with them. Horrified by this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot refuses to give them over to the angry crowd. Lot flees Sodom with his family and the city it is destroyed by fire from heaven. Literalist and conservatives have contended that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. However, there are at least three reasons why this story is not about homosexuality or its condemnation.

First, the city of Sodom was slated for destruction long before this homosexual incident. Ezekial 16:48-50 states it clearly, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house, and in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.

And finally, and most importantly, no other passages in the Bible that refer to the destruction of Sodom ever raise the issue of homosexuality. If indeed the story of Sodom and Gamorrah is about sexual morality, then Lot’s gesture to allow his daughters to be raped by the crowd instead of the visitors should put into question its modern moral value.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Yeah, the strange flesh is that they raped the angelic visitors, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you had some Bible knowledge.

Let’s first look at the historic context of Sodom and Gamorrah. The story goes that God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that “all of the people from every quarter” surrounded Lot’s house demanding the release of the visitors so “we might know them” or in other words have sexual relations with them. Horrified by this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot refuses to give them over to the angry crowd. Lot flees Sodom with his family and the city it is destroyed by fire from heaven. Literalist and conservatives have contended that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. However, there are at least three reasons why this story is not about homosexuality or its condemnation.

First, the city of Sodom was slated for destruction long before this homosexual incident. Ezekial 16:48-50 states it clearly, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house, and in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.

And finally, and most importantly, no other passages in the Bible that refer to the destruction of Sodom ever raise the issue of homosexuality. If indeed the story of Sodom and Gamorrah is about sexual morality, then Lot’s gesture to allow his daughters to be raped by the crowd instead of the visitors should put into question its modern moral value.

They didn't rape anyone.

 

[davedjy]

They didn't rape anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/sodom.htm

 

[davedjy]

They didn't rape anyone.

http://www.covenantnetwork.org/FAQ-pdfs/yoder.pdf

 

[UberLutheran]

I believe I answered this question at great length in another thread, and even quoted Ezekiel 16 in entirety -- and then you discounted the answer I gave because I did not use the King James Version of the Scriptures, therefore my answer was invalid.

Just so you know: I translated from the Hebrew; and my response is still the same.

Not that I believe for one second that it will matter one iota to you, but at least now you have my source. (The ancient Hebrews didn't speak English.)

 

[UberLutheran]

They didn't rape anyone.

Of course -- once again you didn't address any of Davedj's other points (or mine from my original post, for that matter).

Just thought I'd point that out to you.

 

[Myriah]

Yes, but I think that that word heteros for strange might also mean "another", as in another flesh.

Strange is an ambiguous word to me, and subjective word to all. Why can't they define a better word than "strange"?

 

[Myriah]

They didn't rape anyone.

No they didn't, but they attempted too! Their intent was to gang rape the angels. This is why only God knows our heart. To me it sounds like a horrendous culture of greed and strange fornication and gluttony. It was probably like pirates, or worse! And not the Johnny Deep kind of "pirates".

 

[davedjy]

Of course -- once again you didn't address any of Davedj's other points (or mine from my original post, for that matter).

Just thought I'd point that out to you.

Don't hold your breath for that one, Uber.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, but I think that that word heteros for strange might also mean "another", as in another flesh.

Strange is an ambiguous word to me, and subjective word to all. Why can't they define a better word than "strange"?

Probably for the same reason we will not find words for urine, feces, genitals, etc. But in this passage the meaning is made clear.

Immoral sex, NOT rape, with other flesh.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

bi^as-mos , ho,

A. violence, Aen. Tact.24.15, Eup.64; rape, parthenou Men.Epit.236 , cf. Satyr. Vit.Eur.Fr.39 vii 8 (pl.); harpagê kai b. Plu. 2.755d , cf. D.H.1.77.
II. Medic., = teinesmos, interp. in Dsc. 3.94.

Robertson Word Picture- Having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneusasai). First aorist active participle feminine plural of ekporneuō, late and rare compound (perfective use of ek, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in lxx (Gen 38:24; Exod 34:15f., etc.). Cf. aselgeian in Jud_1:4.
​

 

[davedjy]

Probably for the same reason we will not find words for urine, feces, genitals, etc. But in this passage the meaning is made clear.

Immoral sex, NOT rape, with other flesh.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

bi^as-mos , ho,

A. violence, Aen. Tact.24.15, Eup.64; rape, parthenou Men.Epit.236 , cf. Satyr. Vit.Eur.Fr.39 vii 8 (pl.); harpagê kai b. Plu. 2.755d , cf. D.H.1.77.
II. Medic., = teinesmos, interp. in Dsc. 3.94.

Robertson Word Picture- Having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneusasai). First aorist active participle feminine plural of ekporneuō, late and rare compound (perfective use of ek, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in lxx (Gen 38:24; Exod 34:15f., etc.). Cf. aselgeian in Jud_1:4.
​

I don't see an example in that text worth mentioning for the types of relationships we are talking about here.

 

[Der Alte]

I don't see an example in that text worth mentioning for the types of relationships we are talking about here.

Of, course not, you only see what you want to see. If it was not rape, and Paul did not use the word for rape, then it must have been consensual [FONT="Georgia][SIZE=+1]εκπορνευσωσιν[/FONT][/size], i.e. out of the law porn.

 

[davedjy]

Of, course not, you only see what you want to see. If it was not rape, and Paul did not use the word for rape, then it must have been consensual [FONT="Georgia][SIZE=+1]εκπορνευσωσιν[/FONT][/size], i.e. out of the law porn.

I am very willing to revise my whole belief system, but I don't see any purpose, and the attitude and information in your posts, just confirm this.

 

[Myriah]

Probably for the same reason we will not find words for urine, feces, genitals, etc. But in this passage the meaning is made clear.

Immoral sex, NOT rape, with other flesh.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

bi^as-mos , ho,

A. violence, Aen. Tact.24.15, Eup.64; rape, parthenou Men.Epit.236 , cf. Satyr. Vit.Eur.Fr.39 vii 8 (pl.); harpagê kai b. Plu. 2.755d , cf. D.H.1.77.
II. Medic., = teinesmos, interp. in Dsc. 3.94.

Robertson Word Picture- Having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneusasai). First aorist active participle feminine plural of ekporneuō, late and rare compound (perfective use of ek, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in lxx (Gen 38:24; Exod 34:15f., etc.). Cf. aselgeian in Jud_1:4.
​

I'm sorry Der Alter, I don't understand your point? It says rape there?

But anyhow the word were not looking for here is fornication, but the going after strange (which means heteros) flesh. Heteros means "another".

 

[davedjy]

I'm sorry Der Alter, I don't understand your point? It says rape there?

But anyhow the word were not looking for here is fornication, but the going after strange (which means heteros) flesh. Heteros means "another".

Rape and anal sex between 2 consenting adults are the same thing, don't you know? Why is it so hard for me not to see that they are one and the SAME, I must be blind?!?

 

[Der Alte]

I'm sorry Der Alter, I don't understand your point? It says rape there?

But anyhow the word were not looking for here is fornication, but the going after strange (which means heteros) flesh. Heteros means "another".

The argument being made by others is that Jude 6 is talking about rape, by the men of Sodom, against the angels. It is not, they say, about homosexuality.

There was a Greek word for "rape", "biasmos". Paul did not use that word, he used the word which clearly means, according to LXX usage, "sex outside the moral law," with other flesh. Sex outside of marriage, i.e. between a man and a woman was already condemned in the O.T., reiterated in the N.T. Jude refers to something "other" than that. The men of Sodom said, "Bring out the men, not angels, that we might know them."

Since it was not rape, it would have to have been consensual immoral sex.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

bi^as-mos , ho,

A. violence, Aen. Tact.24.15, Eup.64; rape, parthenou Men.Epit.236 , cf. Satyr. Vit.Eur.Fr.39 vii 8 (pl.); harpagê kai b. Plu. 2.755d , cf. D.H.1.77.
II. Medic., = teinesmos, interp. in Dsc. 3.94.

Robertson Word Picture- Having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneusasai). First aorist active participle feminine plural of ekporneuō, late and rare compound (perfective use of ek, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in lxx (Gen 38:24; Exod 34:15f., etc.). Cf. aselgeian in Jud_1:4.
​

 

[Myriah]

No, it appears to be "attempted" rape. I never said actual rape took place. There was no rape act to the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah, but it was intended, and seen in the word "to know". And, that's why I said only God knows the heart, because obviously he "foreknew". I mean seriously what is more degrading than gang rape, aside from gang murder?

I have been singularly raped as a female, and it is nearly death to one's soul. Fortunately, I have become a rape survivor through the healing of Jesus Christ.

The word I was speaking to the OP isn't fornication but the word STRANGE (which means heteros) "another" flesh, and it doesn't mean heterosexuals here when the word heteros is used. It means something else; i.e., "another" or "other" and they have translated this word into "strange", which might point to the angels because Jude speaks several times of angels.

 

[davedjy]

The argument being made by others is that Jude 6 is talking about rape, by the men of Sodom, against the angels. It is not, they say, about homosexuality.

There was a Greek word for "rape", "biasmos". Paul did not use that word, he used the word which clearly means, according to LXX usage, "sex outside the moral law," with other flesh. Sex outside of marriage, i.e. between a man and a woman was already condemned in the O.T., reiterated in the N.T. Jude refers to something "other" than that. The men of Sodom said, "Bring out the men, not angels, that we might know them."

Since it was not rape, it would have to have been consensual immoral sex.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

bi^as-mos , ho,

A. violence, Aen. Tact.24.15, Eup.64; rape, parthenou Men.Epit.236 , cf. Satyr. Vit.Eur.Fr.39 vii 8 (pl.); harpagê kai b. Plu. 2.755d , cf. D.H.1.77.
II. Medic., = teinesmos, interp. in Dsc. 3.94.

Robertson Word Picture- Having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneusasai). First aorist active participle feminine plural of ekporneuō, late and rare compound (perfective use of ek, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in lxx (Gen 38:24; Exod 34:15f., etc.). Cf. aselgeian in Jud_1:4.
​

That was RE: the angels, as Myriah pointed out.

 

[Der Alte]

That was RE: the angels, as Myriah pointed out.

And Jude was talking about what they had already done, "having given themselves," Aorist Active Participle, i.e. action started in the past continuing into the future, NOT what they atempted but did not consummate against the angels, they thought were men.

Robertson Word Picture - Having given themselves over to fornication (ekporneusasai). First aorist active participle feminine plural of ekporneuō, late and rare compound (perfective use of ek, outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in lxx (Gen 38:24; Exod 34:15f., etc.). Cf. aselgeian in Jud_1:4.[/COLOR][/B]
​

I have been speaking Greek since Sputnik I please correct me any time.