Changes

{12} And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: {13} For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

{12} And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: {13} For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this   story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation  to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak, http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation  to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6;  6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing).  As for “Iyish” [H376]  this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.   

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6;  6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing).  As for “Iyish” [H376]  this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.   

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word shakhabh (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda  if sexual knowing was meant, <ref>G. A. Barton</ref> yet shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest,  while (again) "yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 13 times in the Old Testament Bible, besides the disputed verses in Gn. 19.

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word shakhabh (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda  if sexual knowing was meant, <ref>G. A. Barton</ref> yet shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest,  while (again) "yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 13 times in the Old Testament Bible, besides the disputed verses in Gn. 19.

It is noteworthy that  prohomosex polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosex or a homosexual relationship into stories such as Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the centurion and his servant, Jesus and John, and (some) Elijah and the son of the widow of Zarephath, and even resort to asserting that Paul was a repressed homosexual, while even more extreme examples can be seen.

It is noteworthy that  prohomosex polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosex or a homosexual relationship into stories such as Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the centurion and his servant, Jesus and John, and (some) Elijah and the son of the widow of Zarephath, and even resort to asserting that Paul was a repressed homosexual, while even more extreme examples can be seen.

An argument is also made in response to the Book of Jude's confirmation that Sodom's most notable sin was fornication, that the Sodomite's sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels. However, not only was Sodom evidently practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests (Gn. 18:20-22), but it is most unlikely that they, nor even Lot, knew then what manner of men his guests were. It should also be noted that at the time of Lot's immigration to that city, the men of Sodom were already said to be “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” (Gn. 13:13), and likely had gotten worse since Lot first arrived. Heb. 13:2 most likely refers to Abraham and or Lot's angels incognito. We see beginning in 19:10 that the men then refused Lot's offer of virgins, and threatened to do worse to Lot then with his guests, and pressed sore against him, almost breaking the door, until the angels smote them with blindness and pull Lot inside and shut the door. This would be impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites  would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men.  

An argument is also made in response to the Book of Jude's confirmation that Sodom's most notable sin was fornication, that the Sodomite's sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels. However, not only was Sodom evidently practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests (Gn. 18:20-22), but it is most unlikely that they, nor even Lot, knew then what manner of men his guests were. It should also be noted that at the time of Lot's immigration to that city, the men of Sodom were already said to be “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” (Gn. 13:13), and likely had gotten worse since Lot first arrived. Heb. 13:2 most likely refers to Abraham and or Lot's angels incognito. We see beginning in 19:10 that the men then refused Lot's offer of virgins, and threatened to do worse to Lot then with his guests, and pressed sore against him, almost breaking the door, until the angels smote them with blindness and pull Lot inside and shut the door. This would be impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites  would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men.  

The sexual connotation in this story is further confirmed in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night.

The sexual connotation in this story is further confirmed in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night.<ref>Derek Kidner, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p. 137.</ref>

==Judges 19==  

==Judges 19==