Does the Bible strongly condemn homosexuality? -- Pervy vs. Bible John

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Pervy and Bible John who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: The Bible does not strongly condemn homosexuality."

Pervy will affirm and Bible John will oppose. The debate will have 5 rounds and posts will be submitted concurrently, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2825279&postcount=23). A special debate format includes shortened introductory and concluding statements.

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=141457) is set up in the Biblical Criticism & History forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Dean Anderson]

First of all, I would like to thank the IIDB for hosting this debate, and thank Nightshade for moderating it. Recently there have been many discussions of homosexuality here at IIDB, and the default position of many (but by no means all) Christians in those discussions is that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so.

This debate will give us chance to explore this issue in depth, rather than simply having to take people's word for it.

I would also like to thank Bible John, my opponent, for taking up my debate challenge after many of the very Christians who asserted (and continue to assert) that "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" declined the opportunity to defend this assertion formally.

The title for this debate is "Resolved: The Bible does not strongly condemn homosexuality", and I am arguing for the affirmative. To clarify my position on this, firstly I am talking about the Bible as written in Greek and Hebrew, not the Bible as translated. Most modern English translations of the Bible have been done by Christians, and these make theological assumptions when translating which are not always borne out by the original texts. If the translator of a text fervently believes that homosexuality is evil and a sin, then - consciously or not - these attitudes will be reflected in their choice of words when translating and will colour the translation accordingly, providing an appearance of an anti-homosexual stance that was not in the original.

In the next round, I will show some canonical (if you excuse the pun) examples of Biblical texts which have undergone this type of eisegetical translation so that they now appear to strongly condemn homosexuality when in fact the original text does not do so.

Secondly, I am not claiming that the Bible writers never disapprove of homosexuality at all. Some of the Bible writers clearly disapprove of any sex outside of marriage - and this would cover homosexuality along with other sexual activities.

However, there is a clear distinction between this sort of mild disapproval where homosexuality is grouped along with other sexual activities and a strong condemnation of the raining-brimstone-down-on-cities and sending-floods-to-destroy-New-Orleans variety that is often claimed. In the following rounds, I will demonstrate that homosexuality is not singled out for special treatment in this way in the Bible, contrary to the beliefs of many modern day Christians.

I also intend to demonstrate places in the Bible where homosexuality is portrayed in an acceptable light.

Naturally, my arguments here are - by necessity - somewhat defensive. Whilst I can point to the more obvious parts of the Bible (e.g. Genesis 19) and pre-emptively deconstruct them, to a large extent I will have to wait and see which Biblical passages my opponent presents as examples of strong condemnation of homosexuality and then examine them to see if they truly are examples of such.

So, with this introduction finished, I wish my opponent luck - and may the best man win...

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Due to unforeseen difficulties, Bible John has requested a 5 day extension to post his concurrent opening statement. His request has been granted and his deadline has been moved to Nov. 4.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Bible John]

INTRODUCTION

I am a born again Christian who chooses to fellowship with the fundamentalist Baptists whom for the most part hold scripture (and not culture) as the authority throughout their churches. I believe that the bible spells the sin of homosexuality out in black and white letters, so that even a mentally handicapped individual can understand. So sad is it that the god of this age has and continues to blind those that are not in the light so that to them a black and white area like homosexuality would turn into a grey area. Don’t get me wrong about the grey areas in the bible, as there are many. And some of the many grey areas are below.

Day of worship
Infant Baptism
The Role of Women in Ministry
Worship styles
Vegetarianism vs. eating meat
Pre Trib vs. Post Trib

But homosexuality the bible very clearly in black and white letters condemns. But sadly homosexuality is a heavily debated issue throughout the contemporary church. The Liberal Christian side (another word for unbelievers) mostly seems to accept homosexuality as well as many other sins. But the strong Bible driven fundamentalist side believes that the bible is quite clear on its teachings of homosexuality. In this debate I will be focusing on a number of bible verses that quite clearly condemn homosexuality and various ways that they are translated using a number of different translations. I do have some knowledge of the original languages (although I admit I am not a scholar) so I can and will show that homosexuality is a sinful act by Gods standards as clearly stated in his written word called the Bible. Throughout my debate I will avoid using any of the liberal paraphrases or liberal dynamic free works so popular amongst the contemporary evangelical church of today. Such translations include the Today’s New International version and the Message. While these translations are by no means synonymous with those of the cults, they have taken away much of the teachings of the bible on controversial issues in their attempt to be relevant to the culture. This is the tragic translation philosophy behind these modern translations of the bible and behind the ministry philosophy of the contemporary evangelical and charismatic churches throughout Christendom today. So the translations that I may use will be the following.

New International Version- Most conservative of the Dynamic free works. This translation is not a word for word copy, but merely a thought for thought or concept for concept copy. Unlike the TNIV it does not take away the meanings on the controversial issues.
KJV- The oldest and perhaps most popular English translation which is based off the Texus Receptus and Majority Texts.
NKJV- A modern translations off the KJV
NASB- The most literal English translation from the original languages. This will be my primary translation that I will be referring to in this debate
Holmans (HCSB
English Standard Version (ESV)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up Round 2.

[Dean Anderson]

Welcome to round two of this debate.

In this round, I will be pre-empting my opponent by bringing up the Biblical verses and passages that are commonly held to be strong condemnations of homosexuality and demonstrating that they are either not as strong in their condemnation as they are generally held to be, or they are not in fact about homosexuality at all when properly translated.

(Firstly, a note about the text used. Within this debate, whenever I give Hebrew text, this will be from the Masoretic text unless I say otherwise. I will be reproducing it from left-to-right (rather than the more traditional right-to-left Hebrew writing system) for ease of transliteration. However, depending on your Internet Browser, the Hebrew text may or may not automatically be converted to a right-to-left view. Whenever I give Greek text, it will be from the Septuagint (for Old Testament text) or from the 1550 Stephanus Textus Receptus (for New Testament text) unless I say otherwise. In both cases, I will be using Unicode characters that should show up on most Internet browsers.)

Leviticus 18:22 (and 20:13)
These verses form part of the Levitical Code, a set of religious strictures that the Bible claims were dictated directly to Moses by God, and which tradition holds to have been written down by Moses.

These verses, when translated into English, are usually taken to indicate that any male-male sexual activity is an "abomination" – and as such, these verses are the first ones that will be brought forth as a demonstration of the Bible's alleged strong condemnation of homosexuality. By a surface look at common English translations, this would indeed seem to be the case.

However, a closer look at both the text and the context of these verses shows a different story.

The Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 is as follows:


ו×?ת־זכר ל×? תשכב משכבי ×?שה תועבה הו×?


This is transliterated directly into English(1) as follows:

ו×?ת־זכר = with-male
ל×? = do not
תשכב = sleep/lie
משכבי = lyings/bed
×?שה = a woman
תועבה = abomination/"wrong worship"
הו×? = it is

Similarly, the Septuagint has the following text for this verse:


και μετα αÏ?σενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαÏ? εστιν


Which is transliterated directly into English(1) as follows:

και = and/but
μετα = with
αÏ?σενος = man
ου = not
κοιμηθηση = sleep
κοιτην = sexually
γυναικος = woman
βδελυγμα = abomination/ritual uncleanliness
γαÏ? = for
εστιν = to be/is

In both of these ancient Biblical versions, the sense is not clear. Both of them can be paraphrased as...

And do not sleep with a man, sex with a woman, it is "ritually unclean".

The first thing of note about this instruction, in either version, is both the specificity and the ambiguity of the first half of the verse.

On the one hand, the verse is rather specific. If you look at other verses in this section of the law, they are worded in a fairly straightforward manner: Don't have sex with animals (Lev 18:23), Don't have sex with your wife's sister (Lev 18:18), Don't have sex with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19), and so on.

We do not see "Don't have sex with your wife's sister as you would with your wife. We do not see "Don't have sex with a menstruating woman as you would when she is not menstruating. More importantly, we don't see: Don't have sex with an animal as you would with a woman.

Given that these other instructions show that the author of these verses doesn't feel the need to spell things out in this way, it raises the question of why women are mentioned in verse 22. If verse 22 were merely an instruction against homosexuality then we would expect (given the writing style of the author as evinced by the surrounding verses) it to simply say "Don't have sex with men." rather than "Don't have sex with men as you would with women." The "...as you would with women" clause is redundant and is out of character for the author.

This is where the ambiguity comes in. The Hebrew and Greek do not actually say "...as you would with a woman". They simply say "sex with a woman". The meaning of this is not made clear. From the previous paragraph, we can see that the usually-translated meaning ("Don't have sex with a man as you would have sex with a woman.") does not fit the context – so what other meaning could this clause have? There is obviously a missing (yet implied) conjunctive of some kind, but what could it be?

There are actually a number of possibilities here, other than the "as you would with a woman" possibility mentioned above. These include...

1) Don't have sex with a man where you have sex with a woman. (I.e. this is a prohibition on mixing homosexual and heterosexual sex in the same bed – in line with other "non-mixing" prohibitions such as those against mixing types of crop in a field or types of material in a shirt.)
2) Don't have sex with a man and also with a woman. (I.e. don't have sex with multiple partners - possibly to do with issues of paternity if two men and a woman are involved in sex together.)
3) Don't have sex with a man or a woman (in a given context). (More about this one below...)

Also of note with the text of this verse is the use of the Hebrew word תועבה – the word used to describe what sort of action it is if you do have sex in the way that is proscribed. This word is used rarely in the Bible, and there is no direct English translation. It is a specifically religious word, used only 12 times in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Deut 7:26, Prov 21:27, Is 1:13, Is 41:24, Jer 6:15, Jer 8:12, Ezek 16:50, Ezek 18:12, Ezek 22:11 and Ezek 33:26).

In all these cases (with the possible exception of the last two Ezekiel references) the word is specifically used to describe an act of worship – but an act of worship that is performed wrongly and therefore insulting to Yahweh. More explicitly, these acts are usually those done to appease other gods.

Given this context, it appears that the Leviticus 18:22 verse is most likely also talking about acts done as part of other rituals to other gods. This is where my third alternate reading comes in – many Canaanite fertility religions (in common with many fertility religions throughout the Near East and Middle East) involved ritual sex in the temple as part of their ceremonial aspect.

With this extra piece of contextual information, the puzzle to this verse appears to be complete. The verse is apparently talking about ritual sex being the wrong way to worship – and is explicitly including both sex with men and sex with women in that.

So given the context, the wording and the sitz im leben of the verse; we arrive at the best translation of the Hebrew as being:

Don't have ritual sex with either men or women, it is the wrong sort of worship.

This is obviously not the strong condemnation of homosexuality that it is commonly interpreted as. Indeed, it is probably not about homosexuality per se.

Genesis 19
The 19th chapter of the book of Genesis is the story of the destruction of Sodom. Like the Leviticus verses that I have already dealt with, this chapter is commonly used as an example of the Bible strongly condemning homosexuality. As I will now show, like the Leviticus verses – this common view is naïve; and the text as written does no such thing.

Before we begin, let us remind ourselves of the relevant part of the chapter, as listed in the NASB (my opponent's translation of choice)...


[4] Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; [5] and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." [6] But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, [7] and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. [8] "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." [9] But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. [10] But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. [11] They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied {themselves trying} to find the doorway.


From this rather biased translation, it appears that the Sodomites were homosexual gang-rapists, and that is why their city was destroyed. This common reading is where we get the term "sodomy" as a name for anal sex from.

However, this text quite simply does not match the older Hebrew text. It is the product of translators who had a predisposed dislike of homosexuality, and who therefore simply assumed that the text supported their views.

To start with, let's go through the specifics of the text from a translation point of view (and I am only looking at the places where it makes a difference here, I am not going to go through correcting every word of the NASB), we get the following changes...

Firstly, in verse 4 (and in verse 10) the NASB refers to the men of Sodom. However, the Hebrew uses the word ×?�*שי, which does not specifically refer to men – it merely refers to people. Whilst the word does have a masculine gender grammatically, it refers to people of both genders.

Secondly, in verse 5, the Hebrew ו�*דעה is used. This is an imperfect form of the Hebrew verb meaning "to know" or "to recognise". The NASB translator has assumed that because the Hebrew Bible occasionally uses the phrase "to know someone" as a euphemism for sex, then the meaning of this verse must also be using this euphemism and has translated "so that we may know/recognise them" into "so that we may have [sexual] relations with them". This translation is totally unwarranted. Of all the various forms of ו�*דעה spread throughout the Hebrew Bible, only a small proportion of these (only 7 instances out of over 80 uses of the verb in total) are actually euphemisms for sex. All of these are in the past (perfect) tense. There isn't a single instance of the word being used in a speculative future tense (as it is used in this verse) where it is used in a euphemistic way.

Having established that the language used in the original Hebrew does not support the anti-homosexual reading, we now move on to the context.

The first major part of the story is the mob trying to break down the door to get to the strangers. The "traditional" Christian reading of this is that the mob wants to rape the strangers – but what does the surrounding context of the story say? In the context of the story, why would the people demand to have a look at (ו�*דעה – in the sense of "know" or "recognise") strangers? Why would they behave in this way?

To find the answer to this, we need to look elsewhere in the Bible. Genesis 14 is our first stopping point. This recounts the story of a war that takes place only a short time before the events in Genesis 19 unfold. In this war, the city of Sodom is attacked, and its armies lose the battle. The King of Sodom is killed (not in the battle itself, but his horse is mired in a tar pit). Lot (who already lives in Sodom) is captured and becomes a prisoner of war. In the end, it is only when Abraham leads his troops in a rescue mission that the three aggressor kingdoms are beaten back and Sodom and its people are liberated.

(As an interesting side-note, my opponent's literalist views work against him here. By the Documentary Hypothesis of Biblical authorship, the story recounted in Genesis 14 is an external (probably traditional) story that has been added to the Genesis account at some point – possibly when the account was first written down by the "Jahwist" author of Genesis 19, but not actually composed by that author(2). However, by the literalist view the two stories are explicitly by the same author, so they are even more tightly linked together.)

So here we have a city-state that has just come out of a war in which it was defeated and lost its king – but in which its conquerors were beaten back by a third party. Given this context, and the threat that the aggressors may return, the paranoia about strangers that the mob shows is understandable. After all, these strangers might be spies or worse. In this context, it is no wonder that the Sodomites want to get a good look at the strangers. It is not a gang-rape that they need to be afraid of – it is a lynching.

That the sins of the Sodomites involved hostility to outsiders, rather than homosexuality, is also backed up by the rant against Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16:46-50. This passage rails against the "lewdness" of Jerusalem, and makes it clear that this "lewdness" is worse than what Sodom was destroyed for – since Sodom was destroyed because of its peoples' pride and haughtiness, and because the rich city did not support its poor and needy neighbours. Sexual immorality is not mentioned here – even though the passage is using sexual immorality as a metaphor for Jerusalem's lack of faithfulness.

Finally, there is the matter of Lot's offer of his maiden daughters. If the mob outside his door was a bunch of homosexual gang-rapists looking for men to rape, why on earth would Lot be stupid enough to offer his daughters to them as a substitute. Of course they would not be interested in them. By this reading of the story, the mob are all homosexual men. Why would they be interested in young women?

However, if the mob is a lynch-mob that is all riled up and after blood then giving his daughters to them makes much more sense in the context of the story. The fact that his daughters are explicitly described as being maidens is not for any sexual reason – but is merely to indicate that legally they are his to give away, as opposed to married daughters who would belong to their husbands.

Within the context, this is also rather symbolic. The Sodomites are breaking the rules of hospitality by wanting to lynch Lot's guests – and as a contrast Lot is demonstrating proper hospitality by being prepared to give up his property (in the form of his daughters) for the sake of his guests.

Once again, this is a passage (in this case an entire chapter) that is often referred to as an example the Bible's strong condemnation of homosexuality – but when the actual text is examined, it is obviously not the strong condemnation of homosexuality that it is commonly interpreted as. Like the Leviticus verses above, this actually has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-27
Now we are into the New Testament. We are also into the realm of verses that do actually talk about homosexuality – although as we shall see, they do not give it the strong condemnation that my opponent needs them to do in order to support his case.

These verses are part of a longer passage about the unfaithful, which stretches from Romans 1:18-32


[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [21] For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. [24] Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. [25] For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [27] and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. [28] And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, [29] being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips, [30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31] without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; [32] and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


As can be seen, this is clearly and unequivocally talking about homosexuals. However, this passage does not condemn people for being homosexual. Instead, these people have been made homosexual against their normal nature by God (as well as a long litany of other things) as punishment for their false worship. As can be seen in verses 18-23, these are people who believe in God but choose to worship god-men and animals instead.

According to Paul in this passage, God has chosen to make a particular group of normally heterosexual people become homosexual as a punishment for their heresy and their insistence on worshipping animals instead of worshipping him.

Obviously, this can not be taken as a blanket judgement on people who are naturally homosexual, and who are not in the particular cult (which from the rest of the chapter would appear to be one of the Greek(3) Mystery Cults) that Paul is railing against.

So this passage, whilst mentioning a specific instance of homosexuality in a poor light, is once again not the strong condemnation of homosexuality in general that it is commonly interpreted as.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (and 1 Timothy 1:10)
These final places in the Bible that I will look at are very similar, so I will deal with them together.

In both of these, the author(4) is listing various groups of people who will not get to Heaven. Here is the list as given in 1 Corinthians 6. Once again, I will use my opponent's favoured NASB translation.


[7] Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? [8] On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. {You do} this even to {your} brethren. [9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, [10] nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.


Most of the terms in the list (idolaters, thieves, drunkards and so on) are clear and have no real issues of translation. However two of the terms in the 1 Corinthians list (one of which is repeated in the 1 Timothy list) are more ambiguous. These are μαλακοι (from μαλακος, translated here as "effeminate") and αÏ?σενοκοιται (from αÏ?σενοκοιτες, translated here as "homosexual").

The first of these terms, μαλακοι, is fairly straightforward. The Greek word simply means "soft" or "weak". The NASB translates this as "effeminate", implying a sexual connotation that is not there in the Greek. The verse in question mixes sexual and non-sexual descriptions of people, so there is no reason to think that referring to "weak" people is specifically aimed at effeminate men – as opposed to (for example) weak willed people of both sexes, or people of weak faith of both sexes.

The second term, αÏ?σενοκοιται, is more ambiguous. This word only appears twice in the Bible – in the two verses that we are talking about here. It is made up from two other Greek words (αÏ?σενος and κοιτες) which mean "man" and "sex" respectively. The best literal translation of this term is to use the term "sex-men".

Of course, we still need to establish what is meant when the author refers to "sex-men". As I have already mentioned, this word appears only twice in the Bible, in the two passages mentioned. However, we can look at other Greek works where it occurs (and more importantly where it does not occur) to glean its meaning.

The first place to look for the word – if we are to determine whether it was used by the Greeks as a word for homosexual men – is, of course, extant Greek homosexual and homoerotic literature. There are no instances of the word being used in any of this literature in which we would expect to find it if it were referring to homosexual men.

It is, however, found in other Greek works. Unfortunately, most of these simply include the term in a list like the two examples we have here – so tells us little. There are a couple that use the term in explicitly heterosexual situations, but not enough for us to know exactly what is meant.

So, in short, the word is ambiguous. I have seen a veriety of claims that it means any of the following things...

Male Prostitutes (who service other males)
Pimps
Homosexuals
Rapists
Male Temple Prostitutes (who service females)
Masturbators

Many Bibles translate the word as homosexuals (or even "Sodomites"!), but in truth the meaning of the word is unknown – and the more accurate Bible translations are those that simply translate the word as "male lovers" – but that, of course, is as ambiguous as the Greek.

So these final passages, yet again, do not strongly condemn homosexuality. It is possible that they condemn it – but there simply is not enough evidence to assert that they do.

Conclusion
I have worked my way through the four main areas of the Bible (six, if you include the repeated phrases and passages) that are pointed at by people as evidence that the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality. In every case, the Bible does clearly and strongly condemn homosexuality in its modern English translation, but each time we look at the original texts we see that this is an artefact of the translation rather than something in the text as written.

As I mentioned in my introduction to this debate, this is something to be expected. When people translate the Bible, they must decide how to interpret the text, and how to translate terms and phrases that do not have a direct equivalent meaning in both languages. Unfortunately, translators are guided by their existing beliefs. When the translator has been brought up with the anti-homosexual teachings of 1500+ years of institutional Christian tradition, they will – whether consciously or not – automatically interpret the Bible to match their predisposed opinions about what they think it should say. Then they point at this interpretation and say to the world that their predisposed opinions match the Bible when in fact it is their interpretation of the Bible that matches their opinions.

I leave this round with a quote that I unfortunately do not know the origin of. However, given the theme of this debate – that the apparently anti-homosexuality parts of the Bible are due to translator and reader prejudice, it seems appropriate:

"You know that you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people that you do."

Footnotes
(1) My own translation.
(2) See "The Bible With Sources Revealed" by Professor Richard Elliot Friedman.
(3) My guess would be that Paul is probably referring to the Eleusinian Mysteries of Dionysus with their bull motif and their reputation for revelry and debauchery.
(4) Although both of these are traditionally ascribed to the authorship of Paul, most non-literalist scholars accept that 1 Timothy is a later piece of pseudographia.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Bible John has informed me that he won't be able to meet the deadline for his next concurrent statement. He will therefore, as the rules permit, have a grace period till Nov. 15.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Bible John]

MAIN ARGUMENTS

Please note that I am unable to bold or bullet anything using FireFox for Mac OSX.

First I wish to apologize for my tardiness. I have been having some economic problems, and quite frankly wish that when me and my opponent started this debate we agreed to a two week time period in between statements. I understand that what is done is done and I will do my best to represent the Lord in this debate with the limited time that I do have. I do not expect my opponent to at first hear and see the scriptures mentioned here with the eyes of the Lord, since it is to my own understanding that he is not yet saved, and cannot be saved if he believes in homosexuality for such a belief compromises Gods holy word, as I will address in this debate with as many scriptures as I feel necessary that very clearly condemn Homosexuality. I have no idea if my opponent and those that hate me from Usenet Newsgroups (whom will point out my every spelling and grammar error) will read and understand these biblical concerns. My opponents are not saved, and so I cannot expect them to hear the truth and understand it. But needless I will try.

Simply I could care less what they think of me. I know that it is God and him only that will convict my opponents of their sins. My opponents should know that I once was walking in the darkness like they until God found me, and showed me the light. My prayer is that God will find my opponents, and perhaps he will use this debate to do so.

2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

My argument against the sinful Godless act called Homosexuality will begin in the Book of Genesis where this Godless sin is first addressed. Sadly some incorrectly believe that Homosexuality is first mentioned in Leviticus and therefore conclude that this sin does not transcend nor extend beyond the moral law of Moses. There are many laws in the Law of Moses, many of which are no longer practiced by most evangelicals today. For example in the Law of Moses there are a half dozen dietary laws. There are some foods that God forbade and others that He did not. Most evangelicals today no longer practice these laws (well except Seventh Day Adventists). I use this as an example, because many of the supporters of Homosexuality claim that since homosexuality is first mentioned in the Pentateuch (Gen-Deut) then this like all the other laws are no longer active. They only use this argument, because they have failed to read the entire scriptures, and have failed to see that Homosexuality was FIRST addressed in the first book of the bible called Genesis. Homosexuality is not only one of the many social laws but goes far beyond the social and into the moral realm with transcends the book of the law and is addressed in the New Testament as well. Dietary laws do not transcend nor extend beyond the book of Moses, and nor are they mentioned in the NT. As a matter of fact God on several occasions declared all foods to be clean.

Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Sometimes when I quote scripture I will quote from multiple translations. I often do this because I am an educated man, and in college was taught something called a Triangular approach, which means that it is never appropriate for a student of the word to use only one translation. Those who practice the triangular approach will use multiple safe translations. All translations in my side of the debate are safe as mentioned in my introduction.

Passage #1
Gen 19:5-8
NASB

[Ge 19:5] and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." [6] But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, [7] and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. [8] "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

NIV
Gen. 19:5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Gen. 19:6 ¶ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
Gen. 19:7 and said, "No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.
Gen. 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

In the bible this is the first time that the sin of homosexuality is addressed. Both the NASB & KJV avoid using the word sex in verse 5, while the NIV as clear as day uses the word.. The Hebrew word being used in the above to translation to the English word for relations is (yada Strongs 3045). This word appears some 800+ times in the NASB OT. The word basically means the same as the word "sex" as mentioned in the NIV.

In the passage above the two men that the people of Sodom so desperately wanted to have sex with were two angels that were not of this world. They are first mentioned in chapter 18 appearing to Abraham. These men come to Abraham to reveal to him the judgement they will cary out on the city of Sodom because of its great wickedness. No question Homosexuality was one of the many sins that earned its sentence. It was not the only sin, but perhaps the most severe of them.

In verse 11 the men struck the homosexual offenders outside with blindness. I have no exact idea if the blindness was temporarily or permanent, but my guess would be permanent. The angels were not afraid to use their power and knew that sin must be punished. God today in his grace no longer will blind homosexual offenders. But one day the judgement will come. I do know of another instance in scripture where God struck someone blind, but in this instance the victim was the Apostle Paul whom God needed for the fulfillment of his plan. Homosexuality was apparently a common practice in this ancient and evil city as mentioned in Judges.

Another story very similar to this one.

NIV
Judg. 19:22 ¶ While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
Judg. 19:23 ¶ The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing.

When I read about Sodom and its homosexual activities. I create a modern comparison between Sodom and San Francisco. Last semester a friend of mine played me a video tape series on homosexuality and the entire focus of the videos was San Francisco which is believed to be the capital of the homosexuality sin in the USA. Growing up in that area I could very much relate to the horrific graphics of homosexuals I saw on my tiny TV screen. To go into a little of the gore the videos portrayed. I saw both men and women naked and nude sun bathing, I saw some having sex out in public. And I saw the sick and twisted homosexual parades. These are the parades were many homosexuals are convicted to dance nude, and sadly some of the local churches in San Francisco are convicted to join them.

In some parts of San Francisco it seems okay to walk around nude and to have sex in the open. I can imagine Sodom being like this and why The Lord destroyed this city. Certainly San Francisco will one day be destroyed. Her condemnation is coming rather quick if she does not repent. But for know she is under God’s grace and his grace will one day run out.

The second passage that I will focus on comes from the book of Exodus.

Passage #2

Exodus 22:19
NIV

[Ex 22:19] "Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.

Probably not many homosexual and sexual immoral people wish to have sex with animals today. But I hesitate to say that there is a small faction of sick, twisted, people that enjoy this sinful act. I know this because on occasion when I search the web or check my email I unfortunately have witnessed both men and women having sex with animals. Sadly in the day of sexual immorality that we live in, it’s very difficult not to be exposed to such filth. Such a simple web search, or checking of ones email is all too often all it takes to get exposed to these acts.

In Exodus there are a ton of other social laws that if violated often the punishment was death. The homosexual act of sleeping with an animal was not the only sin that would lead to death, and I by no means am saying that it was the worst of all social law violations. I say this to address those reading this message who enjoy having sex with animals. You see back in the Old Testament anyone caught having sexual relations or intercourse with an animal was to be put to death period. Often those that were put to death were done so by stoning. Certainly a much more painful way to die than Lethal injection wouldn't you say? People today do not know how good they have life, and how badly they need God’s moral guidance in their lives. If society was still under a Theocratic kingdom with God in charge and the consequence for such sin was death, then the population would be drastically smaller wouldn’t you say? But no God has chosen to forgive people of their sins, and has chosen to forgive homosexual offenders. I want every homosexual that reads this to understand that it is not too late for you to turn from your wickedness. It is not too late to turn to the light. But do so while there is yet time, for one day you will be punished for your sins.

Passage #3

Leviticus 18:22-23

ESV
[Lev 18:22] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
[23] And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

I heave heard of some fundamentalist Christians that use this passage as a weapon against homosexuals. I am a fundamentalist so you probably are thinking that I am just like every and all other fundamentalists. This is anything but the truth and I for one do not condone the practice of hating homosexuals. Certainly such persons that preach hatred towards homosexuals are not speaking the truth in love. Jesus said that 2nd greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. It does not take rocket science to figure out that those that that speak to homosexuals with such hatred are by no means loving their neighbor as themselves, for they certainly would not condemn themselves to hell as quickly as they do homosexuals! Jesus also said that all men would know that you are my disciples by your Love. So I believe it necessary to show love for the homosexual sinners, but hate for their sin. So many in the church today get confused on what it means to love, and homosexuals cant separate their sin from themselves. So they believe anyone who calls their sin as the bible calls it, is hating them.

Passage #4
Leviticus 20:13

HCSB
[Lev 20:13] If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.

Again more condemnation for those that practice homosexuality. Note when I say condemnation I am not implying this with a mean spirit. The bible is the authority and very clearly condemns this sin. The bible does not condemn sinners alone, but without forgiveness for their sin, then they are condemned already. The Israelites were living under a Theocratic kingdom and God alone was in charge. When God is in charge He makes the rules and only He has decided that Homosexual offenders shall be put to death. If such Theocratic laws were active today, our world would be a lot smaller and our graves larger!

There are many more passages in the Old Testament condemning Homosexuality but for the sake of time and space I will skip right ahead to the New Testament, which I feel more qualified to address.

Passages in the New Testament that condemn Homosexuality

Passage #1
Romans 1:24;26-28

NASB
[Ro 1:24] Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
[26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [27] and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
[28] And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

Romans 1:24;26-28

NIV
[Ro 1:24] Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
[26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
[28] Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

I address from the NIV here because I believe it to be the most clear English translation or paraphrase with this passage. The NASB may be more true to the original text and I know this because I have and use an Interlinear bible. But the wording in a word for word translation like the NASB does not sound as clean in the English at least to my assertion as the most conservative of all the dynamic free translations the NIV.

Looking at the CONTEXT of the passage starting at verse 18 and we see that from 18-the end of the chapter deals with God's wrath against mankind. Homosexuality as addressed in the passage is not a natural sexual relation, and anyone with common sense can figure this one out. There is no homosexual gene no matter what anyone says, and no one is born into a lifestyle of homosexuality. Every man has a choice to follow God or to follow the devil; and sadly many follow the devil. Those that argue in favor of a homosexual gene have not properly understood the science of their argument, and for two have not properly understood scripture which makes it as clear as day that a homosexual gene is not possible.

Since the beginning in Genesis chapter 1 God created man to be with woman and woman to be with man. But because of the great disobedience of man to follow the will of God, God has given man over to his immoral and unnatural lusts. One of his lusts is the sexual intercourse with other men. Only through a depraved mind as it says in verse 28 that God gave them over to a depraved (sinful) mind. It says this only because these men did not find it necessary to follow God, so as a consequence to their disobedience God gave them over to such a sinful mind. One of these sins resulting from such a depraved mind is the exchanging of natural sexual relations with unnatural ones. The unnatural relations are clearly homosexual activities. So my question for the "Liberal Christians" reading is this.

How can you who claim to hold the bible as the final authority and the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16) and still believe that God would allow homosexuality in his church? How and where in the bible does it say that homosexuality is okay? Have you never read Romans? If you believe that homosexuality is okay then it is safe to say that even you are not saved.

Passage #2
1 Corinthians 6:9

Note that some translations below include the word homosexuality while others do not.

KJV
[1Co 6:9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

NASB
[1Co 6:9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

NIV
1Cor. 6:9 ¶ Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

ESV
[1Co 6:9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

I personally like the way the ESV translation has this verse worded. It says in plain English that men who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. The KJV is very confusing because it has words like "effeminate" which I have no clue without the looking at a dictionary what it means. All too often confusion is the end result of reading the original KJV translation. I do not know if it’s my reading comprehension abilities, or the Elizabeth English that I have a hard time understanding. I am not alone in my reading comprehension issues with the KJV.

1 Cor 6:9 lists a number of sinful lifestyles that will not inherit the kingdom of God. It implies that neither the sin nor the sinners that practice and live by these lifestyles will be in the kingdom of God. The list is by no means exhaustive, but the main categories of sins I believe are addressed here. Homosexuality is among these sins and those that live this sin will not live in heaven. Sadly all the Rainbow Baptists and "Liberal Christians" will not enter heaven if they continue in their sinful and God-absent lifestyles.

1 Cor 6:9 does not teach that those whom committed individual homosexual acts, and later repent are doomed to hell, for if this were the case then this would be a contradiction of verse 11 which claims that some were homosexual offenders before they turned to the truth. I address this because there are some that infer that committing the sin once will land them in eternal separation from God. This argument is flawed and does not take the entire scripture into context. Needless it probably originated from the "Liberal Christianity" side.

The Greek word used to translate into the English word Homosexuals (NASB translation) is (arsenokoit’s Strongs 733a). This Greek word is listed only twice in the NASB NT and both times the proper rendering is the word Homosexual. Surprised? The other occurrence of the word I will be discussing next.

Passage #3

1 Timothy 1:9-10

ESV
[1Ti 1:9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, [10] the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Note- The NIV, KJV and NKJV do not use the word homosexuality in the verse above.

Taking a look at my Interlinear bible it appears as if the word Homosexual is in the original Majority Texts. The Liberal Christians may disagree, but then again they do not view the scripture as God inspired.

The law that Paul mentions here is not for those that are Godly but for the ungodly. Those that continue in their sin should take note.

The first 4 sets of sinners correspond to the first four 10 commandments.

∑ The disobedient
∑ The ungodly
∑ The sinful
∑ The rebellious

While the next 6 sins corresponds with the remaining commandments. Homosexuality is again mentioned and this is yet another passage that very clearly condemns homosexuality.

∑ Those that murder their father and mother
∑ Those that murder other people
∑ Those that are sexually immoral or homosexual
∑ Slave traders
∑ Liars
∑ Those that do anything that contradicts the correct teaching

Passage #4

Revelation 22:15

NIV
[Rev 22:15] Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. .

Looking at the verse in the original CONTEXT we see in verse 14 that the city that John is writing about is in heaven. Those that practice evil; will in no way surround the holy city, because they will be in the Lake of Fire as mention in Rev 21:8.

KJV
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The list of sins mentioned in this passage is not exhaustive, nor is it in any order. But it does make it very clear that those who live a lifestyle of sexual immorality without repentance will not inherit the kingdom of God. I cannot say it any clearer, and sadly even though the bible does make it as clear as day that homosexuality is a sin that will not inherit heaven, many "Liberal Christians" and homosexual advocates will not hear these words. They will not hear because Satan has robbed them.

2Cor. 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

I hope that this is enough for Pevry to see the light and see the truth about homosexuality, for it cannot be any clearer that God hates the sin of Homosexuality. I want every homosexual that reads this to understand that it is not too late for you to turn from your wickedness. It is not too late to turn to the light. But do so while there is yet time, for one day you will be punished for your sins.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up Round 3.

[Dean Anderson]

Welcome to the third round of this debate. In this round, I will be refuting the arguments that my opponent made in round 2 of the debate. This will be made easier by the fact that my predictions about which Biblical passages my opponent would use were largely correct, so most of my arguments demonstrating why these passages can not be taken to be strong condemnation of homosexuality have already been presented in the previous round.

Before I get going, I would like to apologise to my opponent for the strict timescales for this debate, whilst pointing out that I am under these same timescales as well – and I too have to fit all my research around my work and looking after my family. The strict timescales therefore favour neither of us over the other, and at least they will mean that the debate will be finished before the Christmas holiday season.

I also wish to comment on my opponent's use of Bible translations. My opponent says:


Sometimes when I quote scripture I will quote from multiple translations. I often do this because I am an educated man, and in college was taught something called a Triangular approach, which means that it is never appropriate for a student of the word to use only one translation. Those who practice the triangular approach will use multiple safe translations. All translations in my side of the debate are safe as mentioned in my introduction.

My opponent is here demonstrating exactly the attitude that I have been describing in my earlier rounds. One would think, as a (hopefully) objective outsider, that if one wants to make a scholarly study of what a work says one would do two things.

1) Examine the original work (or as close as we can get to it) in the original language(s).
2) Compare as many translations as one can, so that one can see the spectrum of interpretations that people put on the original work.

However, whilst my opponent does at least admit that it is better to use multiple variants than to rely on a single translation, he seems to think that it is better to only stick to modern English translations rather than to try to delve into what the original text says, and further he seems to think that it is better to only rely on "safe" translations – i.e. translations that fit your predisposed theological viewpoint.

The whole issue underlying this debate is my assertion that the anti-homosexual bias found in modern English Bible translations and interpretations is mainly due to the presupposed anti-homosexual position taken by Christians as they follow the handed-down tradition of their religion, rather than being something that is in the original works. This emphasis by my opponent on using "safe" modern translations that agree with his theology rather than looking at what other texts (particularly older ones) say is a wonderful example of this presupposition in action and is a strong piece of support for my assertion.

One last thing before we start – in the last round, some of the Unicode Hebrew seemed to get mangled by the board software, so in this round I will use transliterations rather than posting Hebrew and Greek characters.

With that out of the way, let me now start to address my opponent's arguments.

Validity of the Levitical and Deutoronomic Law Codes
My opponent starts by arguing that people claim that homosexuality is first mentioned in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy), but that this is incorrect because it is actually first mentioned in Genesis. Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but Genesis is part of the Pentateuch. My opponent is saying exactly the thing that he is complaining at other people for saying. I must admit that I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make here.

Moving swiftly on, my opponent then argues that whatever anti-homosexuality laws may have been in the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes are still binding today, since Jesus did not explicitly abrogate such laws in the way that he did the dietary laws. This gets no argument from me, since I have already demonstrated that the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes do not have such laws. I certainly will not be arguing that homosexuality used to be condemned in the Hebrew Bible, but that the New Testament nullifies such condemnation. In fact, I argue the opposite – what little unambiguously anti-homosexual material exists is generally in the works of Paul and later New Testament authors.

Now we get to the "meat" of my opponent's argument – the actual Biblical passages which he claims show a strong condemnation of homosexuality.

Genesis 19
I have already gone into detail about how this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality, and it is up to my opponent to demonstrate my errors in doing so if he wants to support his case that it does. However, I will comment on the specific points that he has made about the passage.


Both the NASB & KJV avoid using the word sex in verse 5, while the NIV as clear as day uses the word.. The Hebrew word being used in the above to translation to the English word for relations is (yada Strongs 3045). This word appears some 800+ times in the NASB OT. The word basically means the same as the word "sex" as mentioned in the NIV.

This assertion by my opponent that the Hebrew word {yada} basically means the same as the English word "sex" is quite simply misleading and incorrect. As I have pointed out, this word means to "know" or to "recognise". Whilst it is (rarely) used as a euphemism for sexual activity, in the vast majority of cases it is quite simply used with its mundane meaning and with no sexual innuendo attached. If my opponent wishes to argue that sexual innuendo is meant in this particular case, he will need to demonstrate that using the context of the verse. To simply make the blanket generalisation that the word means "sex" is completely unwarranted. Since my opponent references the Strong's Lexicon number for this word, I will quote its definition from an online version (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=3045) of Strong's Lexicon:


3045 yada` yaw-dah' a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow):--acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, (un-)awares, can(-not), certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be (ig-)norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have (knowledge), (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have (understanding), X will be, wist, wit, wot.

As can be seen, this is a common word – with the most proper definition being "to ascertain by seeing". I have already shown that this most common definition fits the context of the Genesis 19 story better than its usage as a euphemism fits the same context. If my opponent wishes to argue that the word is being used with a much rarer definition then it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate this – not simply assert it.

As to this context, my opponent asserts that:


These men come to Abraham to reveal to him the judgement they will carry out on the city of Sodom because of its great wickedness. No question Homosexuality was one of the many sins that earned its sentence. It was not the only sin, but perhaps the most severe of them.

However, he gives no reason, argument or scriptural evidence to support his claim that homosexuality was "perhaps the most severe" of the offences that earned Sodom its judgement within the story.

My opponent is using circular logic here. He asserts that the proper translation of the verse in the story is the one that makes it about sex, and as "evidence" for this, he claims that the context of the story is about sex – but the only reason to think that the story is about sex in the first place is because of the way the verse is being translated.

Judges 19
For some reason, my opponent seems to think that this story also takes place in the city of Sodom. However, reading the preceding verses, it is made clear that this actually takes place in the city of Gibeah.

The text in this story is almost identical to the text in the Genesis 19 story of Sodom. The wording of verse 22, where the mob is clamouring for the strangers to be brought forth is just like that of Genesis 19:5 – with the same verb {yada} being used.

Once again, this is translated to English as a reference to homosexual sex – although in this case it is even more obvious given the context that the mob are not homosexuals.

If we look at the whole story, we can easily see this context


22 While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him." 23 Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. 24 "Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and brought {her} out to them; and they raped her and abused her all night until morning, then let her go at the approach of dawn. 26 As the day began to dawn, the woman came and fell down at the doorway of the man's house where her master was, until {full} daylight. 27 When her master arose in the morning and opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, then behold, his concubine was lying at the doorway of the house with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up and let us go," but there was no answer. Then he placed her on the donkey; and the man arose and went to his home. 29 When he entered his house, he took a knife and laid hold of his concubine and cut her in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout the territory of Israel.
:

As can be seen, unlike the earlier Sodom story, this time the mob do in fact get hold of the women offered to them.

It is not clear in the original Hebrew whether what happens to the woman is sexual or not. In verse 24, the NASB uses the word "ravish" – implying that the women are specifically being offered for sexual purposes – but the Hebrew does not have this. The Hebrew merely says that the offer is to "humble", "oppress" or "afflict" the women {`anah} , with no sexual connotations.

Similarly, verse 25 is very badly translated. Once again, the NASB gives it the maximum possible sexual content in its interpretation and translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew says that after the woman was thrown out of the house, the mob "saw" (or "recognised" or "knew") her {yada again} and they "dealt harshly" with her {`alal}. Again, like {yada}, this Hebrew word is used throughout the Hebrew Bible and is not normally used in a sexual sense. Given the wording of the Hebrew in verse 25, a much better translation would be:

So the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them; and they saw her, and they dealt severely with her all night until the morning; then let her go at the approach of dawn.

The mob could have given her a severe beating. They could even have raped her. The text simply does not tell us what the author's intention is here.

However, either way, this would indicate that the mob were not homosexual in nature. If the woman was beaten and left, then there is no sexual content in the story at all. On the other hand, if the woman is raped as part of this beating, then this implies that the mob is heterosexual.

So once more, we see that when we look deeper, there is no strong condemnation of homosexuality.

Exodus 22:19
I am not sure why my opponent even brought this verse up. He seems to be equating homosexuality with bestiality. They are two completely different things, and any condemnation of bestiality has no bearing on whether or not the Bible also condemns homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Whilst my opponents quotes these verses, he gives no evidence to support his assumption that the modern English translations that appear to be strongly anti-homosexual are in fact the best translations (or even that they are acceptable translations).

As such, there is nothing to refute, and no need to add anything to the analysis of my previous round.

Other Hebrew Bible Passages
My opponent goes on to say that there are "many" other passages in the Hebrew Bible that condemn homosexuality – but he does not say what these passages are, so this claim carries no weight.

Romans 1:24-28
Once again, this is a passage that I have already addressed at length.

Here, my opponent specifically states that the NIV is a less accurate translation than the NASB – but that he prefers it anyway because it is "the most conservative". My opponent here could not have given me my argument more ammunition if he had tried! He is specifically selecting a poorer translation because it is more condemning of homosexuality – thus demonstrating both that the condemnation of homosexuality is not as strong in the original and that (some) Christians favour interpretations and translations that agree with their presuppositions over more accurate translations and interpretations.

Of course, my opponent having admitted his bias, and the reason he prefers the poorer quality translation of the NIV, brings up the point of why the NIV would be a poorer quality translation in the first place. The obvious answer of course, is that – like my opponent – the translators of the NIV favoured support for their presupposed bias over accuracy when they did the translating.

As for my opponent's specific comments about the context of this passage, he asserts that this passage is talking in general about all of mankind, even though the comments in verse 14 about the "wise" and verse 22 about those who profess to be "wise" make it clear that the passage is talking about a particular group of Greeks who worship (images of? idols of?) animals. As such, the talk about homosexuality being unnatural is talking about it being unnatural for those people – and although it is not explicit, this may be a reference to what happens in their religious rites rather than a reference to their everyday activities. It is likely talking about people who are normally heterosexual but enact homosexual acts as part of their worship. If my opponent wishes to portray these verses as referring to all people all of the time, he needs to provide some supporting evidence for this view.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Once again, my opponent openly admits that he prefers the versions that say what he wants them to say over the more accurate translations.

There is little else that needs saying here, other than to point out that my opponent relies on the translation of the rare word {arsenokoites} into "homosexual" to make his case, and as I have already demonstrated – this translation is speculative at best. The word is only used in two places in the Bible (the two verses we are discussing), and neither of these gives the context that we would need to be sure about its meaning. Other works that use the word also use it in "sin lists" as it is used here (so again there is little to no supporting context) or in contexts that are heterosexual in nature. Other works that are explicitly homosexual and homoerotic in nature (and therefore where we would expect to see the word if it referred to homosexuals) do not use the word.

Revelation 22:15
I'm not quite sure why my opponent has listed this verse as something that condemns homosexuality. It condemns the sexually immoral {pornoi - "whoremongers" or "the promiscuous"} but says nothing about homosexuality.

Conclusion
Frankly, I am somewhat disappointed by my opponent's arguments. He has brought up passages that have nothing to do with homosexuality, even in the most conservative translation, and he has completely to support any of his assertions about the passages that do mention homosexuality in some translations – openly admitting that those translations are not the best, and that the best translations are less condemning of homosexuality.

I leave this round by putting together some of my opponent's words and those of myself from the last round. It appears that my closing words last round were strangely prescient...

Last semester a friend of mine played me a video tape series on homosexuality and the entire focus of the videos was San Francisco which is believed to be the capital of the homosexuality sin in the USA. Growing up in that area I could very much relate to the horrific graphics of homosexuals I saw on my tiny TV screen. To go into a little of the gore the videos portrayed. I saw both men and women naked and nude sun bathing, I saw some having sex out in public. And I saw the sick and twisted homosexual parades.
I know this because on occasion when I search the web or check my email I unfortunately have witnessed both men and women having sex with animals. Sadly in the day of sexual immorality that we live in, it's very difficult not to be exposed to such filth. Such a simple web search, or checking of ones email is all too often all it takes to get exposed to these acts.
I hope that this is enough for Pervy to see the light and see the truth about homosexuality, for it cannot be any clearer that God hates the sin of Homosexuality. I want every homosexual that reads this to understand that it is not too late for you to turn from your wickedness. It is not too late to turn to the light. But do so while there is yet time, for one day you will be punished for your sins. (my emphasis)

You know that you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people that you do.
My opponent has demonstrated the very essence of my argument here in stronger terms than I ever would have. He refers to the homosexual acts he has seen (and I have to say – he does seem to be going out of his way to see them, it makes me wonder what his "simple web searches" are looking for) as "sick", "twisted", "horrific", "filth", and so on. He then goes on to say how he prefers the translations of the Bible that condemn homosexuality the most strongly, whilst admitting that they are not the best translations.

I would ask – if this anti-homosexual bias is so strong in my opponent, is it too far fetched to suggest that it has also been present to a lesser extent in the translators of these modern versions of the Bible, and to suggest that the anti-homosexuality themes in these modern versions are more the product of such bias than the legacy of the original texts?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Bible John,

Please note that the deadline to post your next concurrent statement has passed. You will be permitted a grace period till Nov. 25.

Thank you for your consideraton,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Bible John's grace period has expired and unfortunately I must declare a forfeiture. Pervy will have the opportunity to post a concluding statement if he wishes to. After that, this thread will be closed.

- NS, FD Moderator

Edit: Pervy has declined to submit a concluding statement. This thread will now be closed.