Posted on 10/04/2017 9:00:29 AM PDT by fwdude
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was the most extensive judgment found anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation actually for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality?
People find what they want in the Bible. If one looks hard enough, he can find "biblical" support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every cult of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims and so does some of the occult.
It's not surprising, then, that a recent trend in biblical scholarship holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context offers no solid basis to conclude that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality.
(Excerpt) Read more at str.org ...
Who knows? But the language that he began to be a “mighty one” links up with the description of the Nephilim as “mighty.”
Did he access pre-Flood knowledge?
Did he engage in an act of cannibalism on some Nephilim remains? See this article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action/
The issue with this thought (Nimrod) was that he was the son of Cush, not Canaan.
Also, Genesis 6:4 seems pretty clear. Could be there was a second violation.
I’ve gotten into arguments with people who used these exact syllogisms.
The other argument used is that Lot was promoting incest, so, he’s not a good example.
Yeah, that’s two more “reasons” I’ve gotten from those saying homosexuality wasn’t the sin of Sodom.
>The first part: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery...
>Many say that proves it is ok to divorce your wife if she commits adultery. But what it actually is saying is that if you divorce your wife you make her the victim of adultery, UNLESS it is because SHE committed adultery first. What it is really saying is that you cannot make someone an adulteress if they already made themself one. It is NOT saying that it’s ok or not ok to divorce them. It’s saying that if you divorce them for any reason other than their own adultery, you make them a victim of adultery, otherwise, They made themself a victim of adultery.
>And the latter part: “...and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
>I’m challenged by that one because both my wife and I were divorced when we married. And at 43 that is about all you have to choose from that is not single for worse reasons. I have a hard time reconciling that, though we’ve lived infinitely happier these last 20 years than I did with my first wife the first 20. And I didn’t divorce her. She divorced me. Same thing happened to my wife. We were both evicted from our marriages and then found each other.
>The Lord does work in mysterious ways. I’ve gotta ask him what he was really driving at with that verse. Both halves.
The context of when it was written matters. First, a woman committing adulty was generally put to death or sold into slavery. Either way, the marriage was over when it occurred. Note that there is no such biblical standard for men sleeping around outside of marriage. The concept of men committing adultery is strictly limited to men sleeping with other men’s wives and the penalty for that crime is death.
The meaning of the verse is marriage is insoluble. Get divorced and any act of sex the divorced woman engages in not with her original husband is adultery.
The one exception being the husband of the divorced women not being a believer and he left her. At that point, she’s free to remarry because she did her duty to her husband as required by God.
I believe the goal behind the verses is to make it illegal for a Christain to divorce. A Christain man who divorces his for anything below the level of adultery should be tossed from the church for his sin. A man divorced by his wife isn’t at fault for the un-Godly laws our nation forces on us and is free to remarry while any women who divorce her husband should be kicked out of the church. A woman wrongly divorced by her husband is still tied to him unless he is an unbeliever or he is tossed from the church for his sin of divorce. At that point, she can remarry.
Of course, none of this really functions today because the church doesn’t toss anyone out for living in sin. They no longer exercise authority over their flocks and thus God’s law is ignored. Given the dysfunction of the churches, you and your wife are fine.
I’ve wondered that, too. I guess the reason they chose that word was they were defining themselves as against G-d.
Didn’t read it, but I believe Chabad to be the definitive explanation.
The definition of Greek “hairetikos” (from Titus 3:10) is interesting; it means someone who has made a choice, literally. The euphemistic meaning is one that causes division.
Maybe they were wearing shirts made of wool and cotton.
As the article points out, God had already decided to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah before the attempted gang-rape of the 3 visitors, so “inhospitably” or “attempted rape of angels” cannot be the reason they were destroyed.
while insisting on butt-raping the male visitors.
However, I don’t believe homosexuality was the prime sin that Sodom was destroyed over.
"Unnatural sexual relations," such as those imputed to the inhabitants of Biblical Sodom, especially between persons of the same sex but also with beasts, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," literally "the sin of Sodom," from Latin Sodoma. In Middle English also synne Sodomyke (early 14c.).
My opinion, Sodom and Gommorrah were destroyed because the populace was utterly reprobate in every regard
9For every one that curses his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10And the man that commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11And the man that lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have committed perversion; their blood shall be upon them.
13If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burned with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15And if a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death: and you shall slay the animal.
16And if a woman approaches unto any animal, and lies with it, you shall kill the woman, and the animal: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There are many abominations which came with a death penalty and if they were doing one they were most likely doing all.
Just makes sense to me.
Dr. James Kugel is one of my favorites. Read all his books and listened to all his videos.
He's the best.
Keep trying, bub. No cigar yet.
Read it. It’s really uplifting.
Read my other comments.
But Cush was of the line of Ham. If Ham’s wife’s line was corrupt, then you would have some genetic offspring of Nephilim through the line of Ham, which also might explain why Canaan was cursed.
[I think there’s a difference between “written” versus “compiled”.]
yes
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.