A new edition of the popular New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, reinterprets key sections of the Bible to negate or water down orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexuality, Jesus Christ’s sovereignty, and the sanctity of life.

The new Annotated Bible — edited in part by pro-"gay" and feminist scholars — adopts "gay" revisionist interpretations of Holy Scripture such as that God allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of inhospitality — not homosexual sin.

The nation’s leading church for homosexuals swiftly hailed the new politically correct Bible commentary. Rev. Troy D. Perry, founder of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), wrote on the church’s Web site:

I’m excited to share with you today one of the most important theological breakthroughs in the 33-year history of Metropolitan Community Churches .. the world renowned biblical scholars who prepared The New Oxford Annotated Bible have adopted a great deal of MCC’s own scholarship and theology: There is no biblical condemnation of homosexuality — only prohibitions against its misuse, just as there is no biblical blanket condemnation of heterosexuality, only prohibitions against misuse of that gift.

I am pleased to commend this new study version of the Holy Scriptures. I believe it will be an important addition to the library of every MCC leader — and will be used by God to further open the doors of all faith communities to love, embrace and affirm God’s GLBT children.

Over the last several decades, the New Oxford Annotated Bible has gained wide acceptance in the large denominational churches as a valuable resource in Biblical interpretation. The Third Edition is a replacement for the Second Edition, which was published in 1991.

A comparison of selected commentaries between the two editions readily explains why homosexuals and their liberal allies are overjoyed.

SODOM SIN NOW ‘INHOSPITALITY’ For the last 3,500 years, the sin of Sodom was thought to be the widespread practice of homosexuality by the men of the city. The new Third Edition says differently:

Genesis 19:5-8: "…and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly."

Second Edition: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah impressed itself deeply upon later generations as an example of God’s total judgment upon appalling wickedness … the episode is told to illustrate the sexual excesses of Canaanites. 5. Know refers to sexual relations, here homosexual ("sodomy"). 8: Once guests had eaten in his house, Lot felt he had to obey the law of oriental hospitality, which guaranteed protection. Thus his proposal to hand over his daughters showed his determination to put first his obligation as a host.

Third Edition: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a prominent example in Israelite tradition of God’s total judgment. As in the case of 18:1-8, the main issue here is hospitality to secretly divine visitors. Here, however, the sanctity of hospitality is threatened by the men of the city who wish to rape (know) the guests. Though disapproval of male homosexuality is assumed here, the primary point of this text is how this threat by the townspeople violates the value of hospitality…As a result of his protection of his guests, he (Lot), like Noah, "finds favor" with God and he and his household are rescued out of destruction.

The new Oxford commentary ignores the fact that God had already decided to destroy the city because of the outcry over their grievous sins (see Genesis 18:20 and 19:13). The mission of the two angels who came to Lot’s door was to carry out God’s judgement.

Romans 1:26-28: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done."

Second Edition: God gave them up, because in turning from God they violated their true nature, becoming involved in terrible and destructive perversions; God let the process of death work itself out.

Third Edition: While Torah forbids a male "lying with a male as with a woman," Paul’s Jewish contemporaries criticized a range of sexual behaviors common in the pagan world. Although widely read today as a reference to homosexuality, the language of unnatural intercourse was more often used in Paul’s day to denote not the orientation of sexual desire, but its immoderate indulgence, which was believed to weaken the body.

I Corinthians 6:9-11: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Second Edition: Male prostitutes, young men or boys in a pederastic relationship; sodomites, the older homosexual.

Third Edition: The Greek term translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to "homosexuals," as in inappropriate older translations; "masturbators" and male prostitutes might be a better translation.

THIRD EDITION AMBIGUOUS ON CHRIST’S SOVEREIGNTY, DIVINITY Most perniciously, the New Oxford Annotated Bible’s Third Edition commentary leaves questions regarding the sovereignty and divinity of Christ:

John 14:6 –7: "Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.’

Note that the Third Edition removed the explicit declaration that Jesus is the only way to God.

Philippians 2:5-7: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness."

Second Edition: In the form of God, that is, pre-existent and divine. Something to be exploited and never relinquished. But emptied himself, the extreme limit of self-denial.

Third Edition: In the form of God, equality with God, may refer to divine status, or simply preexistence as a heavenly being, or Adam’s original immortality, which Christ renounced by becoming subject to death. But emptied himself, the extreme limit of self-denial.

The Third Edition commentary removes the declarative statement of Jesus’ divinity and introduces several other interpretations that leave his deity an open question.

SANCTITY OF LIFE PASSAGE DISREGARDED Psalm 139:13-16: "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed."

Second Edition: God formed the embryo in the womb (poetically called the depths of the earth) and knew the psalmist’s character from the moment of conception.

The drastic changes in the Third Edition commentaries may have been influenced by new editors. The Second Edition was edited by Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy. The Third Edition replaced Mr. Murphy with editors Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, and Carol A. Newsom. Dr. Newsom, in particular, is a feminist theologian who partnered with Dr. Sharon H. Ringe to produce The Womens’ Bible Commentary—a feminist perspective of scripture. Dr. Ringe serves as a Biblical consultant to the Reconciling Congregation Program of the United Methodist Church — an outreach to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender Methodists.

Thanks for the reply. So, by offering a passage from the letter from Jude as your "proof," you've apparently accepted my contention that no such proof is found in Gen. 19 - which is the series of passages that you originally claimed supported your view.

We are told in Gen 18 that Sodom was exceedingly wicked. No doubt homosexuality was just one of their sins. And obviously what they were trying to do to the two men with Lot was NOT cool, was it?

No, the story in Gen 19 does not come out and say "the cities are being destroyed because they are homosexuals," but funny, the only sin we are SHOWN is one of homosexuality. Aside from that, are you suggesting that we simply disregard Jude? Apparently from your next statement, you are in fact doing just that.

Certainly the passage you quoted supports your argument. However, Jude wasn't an apostle or a prophet. Ezekiel was a prophet, and if it comes down to a question of the Ezekiel passage versus the Jude passage, clearly Ezekiel is the more reliable source - unless you believe that the prophets essentially didn't know what they were talking about.

Do you think that Biblical passages often contradict each other, so that we must pick and choose which we are to believe?

I believe that GOD knows what He is talking about, and He spoke through Jude as He spoke through Ezekiel. Can God contradict Himself?

However, since you seem to feel credentials are somehow important here, Jude was the brother of James, half-brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church. I hardly think he lacks credibility.

Here are the undisputable facts.

1. The residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked and deserving of destruction, according to God (Gen 18).

2. The residents of Sodom asked Lot to send out two men so they could have sex with them. Here we have homosexual behavior and potential rape.

3. Ezekiel cites unnamed abominable acts (not inactions, as DoughtyOne so wisely pointed out earlier) as contributing factors to Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction.

4. Jude states very specifically that the residents of Sodom were destroyed and used as an example because they went after strange flesh.

Despite our discussion, that's not even the point. The point of the original thread discussion is that God considers homosexual behavior to be an abomination. This is clearly determined by scripture, and despite man's best efforts, that won't change.

To: DoughtyOne

At this point, I'm not even sure what your argument is. My point was simple: the great sin of Sodom was it's neglect of the poor and needy. Were there "other
abominations" that also contributed to it's destruction. Obviously there were. But those "other abominations" were not Sodom's "great sin." Presumably, the "great
sin" was the primary reason for the destruction of Sodom.

Let me see. Moses story of Genesis 19 and Jude's comments of the New Testament mean nothing to you. But Ezekiel, now there's a man worthy of your consideration. Your attempt to trun the account of Genesis 19 into one of neglect of the poor and needy isn't just laughable, it's psychotic.

I assume you meant that my references to other abominations were "red herrings." I was simply pointing out that in the Old Testament there are/were other
abominations than homosexuality. Thus, Ezekiel's reference to "other abominations" could have referred to any of the things which were considered abominations.
Sure, sexual immorality could have been one of them.

Yes there were other abominations. None being mentioned I'll stick with the one God impressed Moses to address. Sure, sexual immorality could have been one of them. Do ya think?

The question of why God would allow the destruction of the poor and needy along with the haughty rich is a good question. I don't know the answer. But you seem
to think that my lack of an explanation proves your point that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants were "embracing the homosexual lifestyle." But why
would God destroy all the women and children of Sodom if the reason was homosexuality? Were the children of Sodom also wicked homosexuals? And if everyone
in Sodom was a wicked homosexual, how/why did they have wives and children? Or do you believe that Sodom was a town of adult men only?

Homosexuality isn't something that is limited to the male of the species. Perhaps wives were taken to provide offspring, but the implications are that the men were living an abomination. Their wives were almost certainly living the same abominable lifestyle. And their children being surrounded by this were unable to grow up to be anything but what the norms of the community allowed. The utter destruction of these communities was the only way to see that their perversions didn't spread throughout the world. As in Noah's time, utter destruction was the only anwer.

I do not "dismiss" the account provided in Genesis 19. I simply dismiss the notion that in that account homosexuality is given as "the" reason for the destruction of
Sodom. Genesis 19 simply doesn't say what you want it to say.

I don't have an ax to grind here. I don't want it to say anything. But it does reveal the events on the night in question. And thereby it reveals the nature of the community and the need for annihilation. You are seeking to state that the cities were destroyed simply because the rich people didn't contribute to the support of the needy and the poor. Oh, and yes, there was that little problem of homosexuality and the demand that angels from heaven submit to anal intercourse on penalty of Lot and his family being killed. But don't worry about that. It meant nothing.

Let's consider the death of Lot's wife for a moment. Do you seriously think God turned her to salt because she looked back on a wealthy lifestyle devoid of feeding the poor? LOL I hate to break it to you, but the woman was turned to salt for looking back longingly to a community of perversions and debauchery

60 posted on 9/13/02 1:39 PM Pacific by Col. Forbin

To: DoughtyOne

"Folks like me", huh? You mean, folks who read and study the Bible with the common sense and rational thought that God gave us? Yeah, I'm one of those folks.

Common sense? Rational thought? Please. What evidence do we have of either. You dismiss the words of Moses and Jude in deference to those of Ezekiel. Spew that stuff to someone that hasn't read your offerings.

So by your own words, you're one of "those folks" who takes every word of the Bible as the inspired word of God. Fair enough. Was it the "inspired word of God"
that declares that adulterers and fornicators should be put to death? Just think of it, the death penalty for adultery - you're in favor of that huh?

What has that got to do with this topic? Your agrument was slammed down like a set of shattered dishes so now you're going to branch out into the netherworld in search of a host of issues you're equally ignorant of to defuse the issue.

And of course, the "inspired word of God" tells us that men can have more than one wife, as well as slaves and concubines that they can have sex with. (Did you
notice that the Bible condemns adultery, but gives the okay for multiple wives and concubines? ) It tells us that if we run out of slaves, we can take them from our
neighbor nations. It tells us that when conquering other nations, we can take their women and children as slaves. I guess you agree with all that.

Once again, what does this have to do with Lot, Homosexuality, Ezekiel (whom you have chosen to believe) and Moses and Jude (whom you dismiss as not worthy of listening to)?

And further, the "inspired word of God" tells employers that they must pay their workers' wages at the end of each day. It tells us to forgive the debts of those who
owe us money every seven years. It tells us not to loan money at interest. It tells us not to mix different kinds of grain in our fields or wear clothing made from two
different kinds of cloth. It tells us not to trim our hair or beards. It tells us not to work on the Sabbath, and to put to death anyone who does. (What were you doing
last Saturday - I hope not working. And I hope you're not one of those folks who doesn't even realize that Saturday, not Sunday, is the Sabbath, and thus, the day
to "keep holy").

Still again, many more issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sorry but I'm not going to allow your little temper tantrum and subtrifuge to change the subject. This issue stands on it's own merits.

By your own words - the Bible is the divine word of God; ALL OF IT.

If you wish to start a thread on those other topics, I may or may not address them, as the Spirit moves me.

You have shown no evidence of comprehension of this issue, so why should we move on to other topics you're having difficulty with?

63 posted on 9/13/02 1:58 PM Pacific by Col. Forbin

On the subject of commen sense and rationality...

This thread has the comments of three Biblical figures, Moses, Jude and Ezekiel. In order to bring the comments of each into agreement, we look for commonality. That is what common sense and rationality demand.

I provided the Genesis 19 account of Moses concerning Lot's family and their interactions with heavenly angels and the citizens of Sodom. AGrace was kind enough to provide the passage of Jude found in Jude 1:7 in which he condemns the going over to fornication and strange flesh. Col. Forbin provided the comments of Ezekiel found in Ezekiel 16: 49-50 in which he condemns pride and the neglect of the poor, and other abominations. Read these references for yourselves.

When trying to glean meaning from these texts, I believe it is important to find commonality. Moses and Jude both reference the homosexual lifestyle. Ezekial references abominations. I would submit that these three men each spoke of abominations. That is the commonality.

Where Ezekiel speaks of over abundance, ease of time, and neglecting the poor, this is the anomoly. Are we to dismiss the commonality of the three of them when they addressed abominations in order to assign all the importance to Ezekiel's stand alone comments on other issues? This flys in the face of common sense and rationality.

Ezekiel admonishes us to consider the issues of over abundance, ease of time and neglecting the poor here. But are these issues the overriding reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra? Moses, Jude and at least a portion of Ezekiel's comments seem to address abominations. Refraining from feeding the poor is not what would normally be considered an abomination, although it may or may not be a sin in all instances. Our taxes go to support the poor. Are we therefore sinners if we don't give more away to the poor? I don't necessarily think so. And is this truly and abomination?

Webseters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary refers to "abomination" as:

1. anything abominable, anything greatly disliked or abhorred
2. intense aversion or loathing
3. a vile shameful or detestable action condition habit etc.

Does not feeding the poor fall into this category, or do certain behaviors of action as depicted in the Genesis and Jude references above more clearly depict an abomination? And isn't that what Ezekiel was refering to with his reference to abominations? I would submit that the careful reading of these texts would lead any rational person exercising common sense to conclude that homosexual perversions were the abominable acts for which Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed.

Does this mean that we have an obligation to persecute homosexuals today? I'm not making that case at all. God will judge each of us when He is ready. I believe that as Christians we should treat everyone with dignity. God extends dignity to all sinners today, myself included. All have sinned and fallen far short of the Glory of God. But... this does not mean that we should simply ignore historical evidence of God's past actions in relation to homosexuality, or allow those actions to be twisted to lessen the implication that God does not countenance homosexuality.

God will handle the future. I can only observe and comment on the past. And while I might argue a point with regard to the past, it doesn't necessarily mean that I know how God is going to handle the disposition of every human from various categories. I haven't the slightest idea how my own judgement will eventually play out. How could I know how others will play out for sure. The one thing I do know for sure, is that our God is a just God.

To: DoughtyOne

I did not say that Moses' account of Genesis, or the epistle from Jude mean nothing to me.

You gave the reasons to dismiss Jude's comments in deference to Ezekiel's. I didn't. You are the one who dismissed Moses' accounts of the community which was destroyed, so don't try to make the case that you value and place meaning on their words. You have dismissed them out of hand.

My previous posts clearly state my position. However, it's no surpise, you didn't address my examples of the "divine word of God." God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it must be wrong. Seems simple enough.

For once we agree, it is simple enough.

Forget about the fact that the same God talking through Moses gives the okay for slavery, rape, multiple wives, concubines, etc. That's your position, huh? By your own words, you must believe that slavery is okay - God said so. You must think that men having mulitple wives and sex slaves and concubines is okay - God said so. Since God instructed Moses that those who do work on the Sabbath should be put to death - you must believe that too. God said so.

What we are addressing is the factual accounting by Moses of a series of events that transpired. Angels came. Lot took them in. The community tried to perpetrate evil upon them. The community tried to kill Lot and his family. Angels interceded. Lot's family was taken out of the city. The city was destroyed. Is this an example of Mosaic Law?

No, but Mosaic Law is what you are now reciting in try to deligitimize an actual recitation of factual events. And no, I wasn't going to play that game.

God destroyed the city. I don't have to say whether I believe in it. I don't have to say whether I think it was right. I don't even have to make up a reason for it happening. That is all provided for us.

Now you can either accept it or go off in a thousand different directions trying to blur the issue. Some will buy your merchandise. I won't.

And you called my position, not laughable, but psychotic. In your world - one devoid of common sense and rational, critical thought - I'm sure that's true.

Having seen your examples of rational thought, I will glean the resident compliment you have mistakenly included. Thank you.

70 posted on 9/13/02 2:28 PM Pacific by Col. Forbin

Where in those words does God say that the reason for the destruction of Sodom is homosexuality or sexual perversion?

Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites "they were haughty and committed abomination before me" and the sexual nature of these "abominations" is suggested in 2Peter 2:6-7; "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction...and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked"..

In Jude 7 we similarly read "Like wise Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing punishment"[NRSV].

Note....Jude 1:7 (KJV) 7 Even 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.
.... indicate that homosexuality is a sub- category of fornication.
That this is the type of fornication being described here.

There is evidence in other early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices: The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites "sexually promiscuous"(Test. of Benjamin 9:1)and refers to "Sodom which departed from the order of nature" (Test. of Nephtali 3:4). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex realtions as the characteristic veiw of Sodom.

Certainly the Sodomites were guilty of other sins, besides homosexuality..but with the number of the references being to Sodoms sexual sins,and the indication homosexuality was widely practiced..it is likely this is one of the many reasons judgement fell on them.

How absurd.
The fact is Jesus was accused of allowing his disciples of to violate the Sabbath, and said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
This has no moral equilvalency to homosexual sin for which the death penalty is prescribed.

The idea that homosexual apologists would compare dietary statutes for the theological state of Isreal, to God's laws against sexual immorality, which are repeated both in the Old and New Testament, shows how bankrupt their arguments really are.

Yes, the passage does mention other "abominable" actions. But it doesn't say that those other actions had anything to do with homosexuality or sexual perversion. Maybe the inhabitants of Sodom consumed shellfish, which is also considered an "abomination" in the book of Leviticus. Or maybe they failed to observe the Sabbath. It simply doesn't say. But what it does say is clear - and Gen. 19 offers absolutey no contradiction - that the great sin of Sodom was neglect of the poor and needy.

I doubt it. You know, as well as I, that the LAW did NOT come until Mose's time, and the 'shellfish' even after that.

You may be right about one thing though..... Commandment #11 (the LOST one, remember?) said,

"Thou shalt NOT neglect the poor and needy amoung you!"

[idiot........]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.