It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What DOES the Bible say about Homosexuality?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (King James) That's where most people who condemn homosexuality for religious reasons point for their justification.

But... What was the original Hebrew and what's the actual translation?

Homosexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures


In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.
...
The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation.
...
There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.


How do we get from: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"
to: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" (The Living Bible translation)??

Are you comfortable condemning an entire group of people based on the many translations and prejudices that have been injected over the years, when it's very possible that they were just saying that 2 men should not have sex in a woman's marriage bed?

Don't you think you should do your own research on this, find out what the original really meant? Or would you rather listen to the New Living Revised Standard Age Bible, written by modern men with a serious agenda? Don't you want to know what was really meant?

Or is it easier just to say "Being gay is wrong! It says so in the Bible" Yeah... that's pretty easy... Never mind whether it's true or not.




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


am i comfortable condemning a group of people for what they do ?

G-D tells us to judge righteous judgement (john 7:24) and the apostles tell us to do likewise (acts 4:19)
Messiah tells us condemn not and you shall not be condemned(luke 6:37)
the same greek word KRINO can be translated either condemn or judge.that same word can have 2 different meanings depending on the context of the verse it krino is found in----in like manner hebrew words can have different meanings according to the context they are found in.

leviticus 20:13 says if a man lies with a man as those who lie with a woman,both of them have committed a detestable act;they shall surely be put to death.this is what G-D told moses---i didn't come up with this idea.

it is quite obvious why G-D destroyed sodom (genesis 19) as jude says they indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, and are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

i don't hate anyone. if other humans decide to destroy themselves by whatever sins they chose to indulge in there's not much i can do about it-------but i do hope not to be drug into destruction with them---i think thats a sensible judgement on my part-----dont you think it is ?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by yahn goodey
leviticus 20:13 says if a man lies with a man as those who lie with a woman,both of them have committed a detestable act;they shall surely be put to death.this is what G-D told moses---i didn't come up with this idea.


It would be nice if you read my post before responding. Here's Leviticus 20:13

"V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

Are you sure you got the translation right?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Bear in mind that if you are going to use Leviticus to denounce homosexuality, then you must also follow all of Leviticus. So, lets see here....

"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even." Leviticus 15:19

So, you believe that we should separate menstruating women for seven days and make sure that nobody can touch her.

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Leviticus 19:19

I hope you don't wear linen and wool t-shirts, otherwise you're committing a sin against God's will.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

Make sure to kill any man that has sex with another man. Oh, don't worry though women can have sex with each other though.


Many more laws in Leviticus also say some pretty ridiculous things. Most people believe that Leviticus is the old law and isn't in effect anymore, but then when they are asked to show why homosexuality is bad they bring up passages from the same book. It's very hypocritical if you ask me.

Only a very few other passages in the bible, like Romans 1:26-1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10 are often translated poorly to include the word "homosexual", when in reality the word itself wasn't coined until the late 19th century.

"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,"

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the word "malakoi" is often wrongly translated in bibles to mean homosexual, when the actual closest English translation is "soft". The King James Bible much more correctly translates malakoi to mean "effeminate". However, even this translation would present a dilemma: God will permit burly, manly homosexuals to inherit the kingdom but not feminine ones? It's likely that every translation attempt of this word has not been quite dead-on.

Some even try to use 1 Timothy 1:10 as a means for condemning homosexuality through attempting to translate the word "arsenokoitai". Literally, the word meshes together two words- men and boy. Many agree that the word more likely refers to either "masturbators, pimps, prostitutes, boy sex slaves, male prostitutes, or abusive pedophiles" (Religious Tolerance).

So in actuality, the bible really says hardly anything about homosexuals, spare Leviticus but that is regarded as the 'old law' by most and is no longer practiced.

Contrary to how many churches would like to have you think Sodom was not destroyed because they practiced homosexuality. Sodom was actually destroyed because its citizens were so inhospitable towards the guests of their city. Don't believe it? Lets use the bible to prove it.

"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." -Ezekiel 16:49-16:50

The sin of Sodom is right there in front of your eyes, it's citizens were "arrogant, overfed, and did not help the poor and needy. This was their sin, NOT homosexuality.

The bible does NOT condemn homosexuality, unless we were to follow the old laws of Leviticus of which people like to pick and choose from to build their argument against the morality of homosexuality. Good day.

Sources:

www.religioustolerance.org...
www.biblegateway.com...

[edit on 3/31/2008 by InterestedObserver]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Leviticus is not required. You can just use the New Testament.

Romans 1:
"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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."



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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. " Romans 1:21-1:27, New International Verison



Explanation: Paul is clearly writing about Paganism throughout this passage. The worship of false idols of birds, reptiles, and other animals found in 1:23 explains that the Pagan practice of worshiping earthly and naturalistic idols was forbidden by God.

Many agree that this part of Romans 1 does refer to Pagan idol worship, but then say that the following verse is strictly about homosexuality and no longer about Paganism.

It seems odd to think that Paul would begin to write about Paganism and then suddenly shift the entire focus of the letter to homosexuality one sentence later. When the letter is so solid in its description of Pagan idolatry worship, and also in the interest of maintaining the symmetry of the verses, it is obvious that Paul continues to discuss forbidden Pagan practices as Romans 1 continues.

Romans 1:24-1:27 proceeds to graphically explain that Pagan sex rituals are also strictly forbidden and unnatural, just as idol worship, because they lead away from the Way of God.

Romans 1 does NOT forbid or condemn homosexual behavior, it condemns Pagan rituals, such as idol worship and sex rituals.


For further reading, check out this article which I used as a reference but did not inspire my beliefs: www.jeramyt.org...



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 


Your grasping at straws... :bnghd:

Romans 1:
"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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."

Even if the context is a pagan ritual, the homosexual act (men inflamed with lust for one another) is described as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion.

Shameful of vile affections comes from the greek word atimia which means 1 dishonour, ignominy, disgrace
cf.blueletterbible.org...

unnatural is the opposite of the Greek physis which means opposing monstrous, abnormal, perverse making it mean thse very thing since it is the opposite.
cf.blueletterbible.org...

indecent or unseemly comes form Greek aschēmosynē which means unseemliness, an unseemly deed ,of one's nakedness, shame.
cf.blueletterbible.org...

It is finally descrbed as a perversion or error from the Greek word planē which means error, wrong opinion relative to morals or religion
cf.blueletterbible.org...

I judge the sin not the sinner. But the Bible is very clearly opposed to homosexuality. You can try to cloud the waters to justify sin but it doesn't change the clear Biblical stance against it.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by InterestedObserver
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the word "malakoi" is often wrongly translated in bibles to mean homosexual, when the actual closest English translation is "soft". The King James Bible much more correctly translates malakoi to mean "effeminate". However, even this translation would present a dilemma: God will permit burly, manly homosexuals to inherit the kingdom but not feminine ones?


I was brought up on the KJV and you make an excellent point here, although some won't agree with it.

There is a school of thought that says that the menfolk of that day were apalled at the thought of men taking the position of a woman (you know, cuz we're dirty sinful creatures that ruined Adam
) and that the whole 'malakoi/soft/effeminate' thing was a prohibition against the passive member of the relationship - tries to think of a delicate way to put this - the one who takes the place of the women. In other words, the 'doer' is A-OK, it's just the man that 'lowers' himself to a woman's position who is the 'shameful' one.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Your grasping at straws... :bnghd:


I am doing no such thing. I am more accurately interpreting Romans 1:26-27 and revealing it in a light that you seem not to have yet considered.

Paul says that they engaged in "unnatural" acts. If you were to take the stance, as science seems to suggest, that sexual orientation is innate and not something that we can choose, then any sexual act for a normally heterosexual person with someone of the same sex is unnatural. Parallelly, a sexual act for a normally homosexual person with someone of the opposite sex is also unnatural.

As common in Pagan rituals, normally heterosexual people would sometimes engage in acts with members of the same sex who were dressed in costume to represent pagan God's. The Pagans believed that they were not having sex with a person but instead with the God manifesting itself in that person. This was a form of idolatry, which is forbidden.

To a non-Pagan, a heterosexual having sex with someone of the same sex could only be explained as unnatural, or departing from their normal sexual orientation. Paul clearly stated that these types of Pagan rituals were forbidden because they included the worship of false idols, especially during their sexual rituals in which they had sexual intercourse with people representing Pagan Gods.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by InterestedObserver

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Your grasping at straws... :bnghd:


I am doing no such thing. I am more accurately interpreting Romans 1:26-27 and revealing it in a light that you seem not to have yet considered.


No I've heard it before, and it's wrong.



Paul says that they engaged in "unnatural" acts. If you were to take the stance, as science seems to suggest, that sexual orientation is innate and not something that we can choose, then any sexual act for a normally heterosexual person with someone of the same sex is unnatural. Parallelly, a sexual act for a normally homosexual person with someone of the opposite sex is also unnatural.


Paul took the trouble to describe exactly what those acts were to avoid the confusion you are trying to invoke. Very specifically:

women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones : Lesbianism
women and were inflamed with lust for one another. : Lesbianism

men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. : Male homosexuality

He is very clear about what he is condemning.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
He is very clear about what he is condemning.


You are completely ignoring my answers for the claims you are making. I explained the reason for Paul calling them unnatural, as I also explained the reason that he said God condemned the acts.

I will explain one more time, Romans 1:21-27 talks about how Pagans worshiped idols foolishly, for they should have worshiped the true God, not Pagan Gods. The sexual ritual described in Romans 1:26-27 is a form of Pagan idolatry. The acts were unnatural because the normally heterosexual participated in sexual intercourse with people of the same sex, just as they would be unnatural is homosexuals had sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex.

Now please respond to that, not with the same "homosexuality is bad and it says so in Romans 1 here".

[edit on 3/31/2008 by InterestedObserver]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by InterestedObserver

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
He is very clear about what he is condemning.


You are completely ignoring my answers for the claims you are making. I explained the reason for Paul calling them unnatural, as I also explained the reason that he said God condemned the acts.



You're argument is just silly. Their is no good way to respond except maybe laugh in frustration.



I will explain one more time, Romans 1:21-27 talks about how Pagans worshiped idols foolishly, for they should have worshiped the true God, not Pagan Gods. The sexual ritual described in Romans 1:26-27 is a form of Pagan idolatry. The acts were unnatural because the normally heterosexual participated in sexual intercourse with people of the same sex, just as they would be unnatural is homosexuals had sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex.


You are just grasping at straws to justify sin. He is very specific.

"leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"

"leaving the natural use of the woman" for "men with men"

You can't dance around the fact that what he is refering to is qualified in the sentence as " men with men ".

I have no use to try to convince you.:bnghd:

I feel like the truth is plain enough to reasonable people that might read this thread. That is enough for me.

My work here is done

peace



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 


In reference to Sodom and its destruction, the order is as follows:

The Iniquity

  • Pride
  • Fulness of Bread
  • Idleness
  • Uncompassionate toward the Poor and Needy


Result of Iniquity

  • Haughtiness


Result of Haughtiness

  • Abomination


The Abomination Committed

  • Sodomy


Result of Sodomy

  • Taking them Away


What may apply to the homosexual also applies to the heterosexual as well:
The individual Sodomizing and the individual being sodomized are an Abomination , whether between male and female or, male and male.










[edit on 4/1/2008 by jdposey]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey


Hi jd,

When the bible clearly states the reasons for the destruction of Sodom, it does not list same-gender sexual intercourse as one of these reasons. Your attempt to connect the dots is just that, an attempt.

Furthermore, not once is what happened in the city of Sodom referred to as an abomination. Not in Romans I, Ezekiel 16:49-16:50, nor Matthew 10:14-15. You are basically trying to add homosexuality to the list of reasons that are given for Sodom's destruction when it is not and was never one of them.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Homosexuality did not exist in the Hebrew Bible for almost a 1000yrs,it was only when the Jews came into greater contact with the Ancient Greeks did it make an apperance.And even then the sexual acts they were talking about were those performed in temples and religious ceremonies.(something practised for many centuries by the Greeks.)

If people want to know what the Hebrew translation really says they should ask someone who knows it and studies it;like i did.

But too many do as you said;its in the Bible so therefore it is wrong and we don't need to look any further.




Many more laws in Leviticus also say some pretty ridiculous things. Most people believe that Leviticus is the old law and isn't in effect anymore, but then when they are asked to show why homosexuality is bad they bring up passages from the same book. It's very hypocritical if you ask me.


I totally agree.People like that just pick and choose which part of the Bible they want to believe and which parts they can use to condemn others!





Now lets attempt to tackle the story of Sodom


You ever noticed how,from the Christian translations,everyone ignores the fact that Lot,a righteous man,offers up his own daughters and his concubine to be gang raped?




InterestedObserver


I will explain one more time, Romans 1:21-27 talks about how Pagans worshiped idols foolishly, for they should have worshiped the true God, not Pagan Gods. The sexual ritual described in Romans 1:26-27 is a form of Pagan idolatry. The acts were unnatural because the normally heterosexual participated in sexual intercourse with people of the same sex, just as they would be unnatural is homosexuals had sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex.


Thats what i'm talking about with the Ancient Greeks.Any form of sex used in connection with worship was an a sin to the Jewish people.
I believe the word used in Leviticus does not actually mean abomination it means ritually unclean.
Jewish peoplealso agree that the destruction of Sodom had very little to do with homosexuality.The worst of the sins was breaking the Law of Hospitality.A law that still carries great importance today.And this Law didn't just apply to Jews,but to all people's.





Romans 1 does NOT forbid or condemn homosexual behavior, it condemns Pagan rituals, such as idol worship and sex rituals.


I agree.These verses also support this.

Romans 1:21/22/23/25 (King James Version)
21.Because that,when they knew God,they glorified him not as God,neither were thankful;but became vain in their imaginations,and their foolish heart was darkened.22.Professing themselves to be wise,they became fools,23.And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,and to birds,and fourfooted beasts,and creeping things....25.Who changed the truth of God into a lie,and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,who is blessed for ever.Amen.


BibleGateway.com is a very good site for seeing the differences in the different Bible versions.




yahn goodey


G-D tells us to judge righteous judgement (john 7:24) and the apostles tell us to do likewise (acts 4:19)


Only those with proper authority were allowed to judge,those that didn't have it were told not to,by Jesus,several times.







[edit on 1-4-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 




Romans 1:21/22/23/25 (King James Version)
21.Because that,when they knew God,they glorified him not as God,neither were thankful;but became vain in their imaginations,and their foolish heart was darkened.22.Professing themselves to be wise,they became fools,23.And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,and to birds,and fourfooted beasts,and creeping things....25.Who changed the truth of God into a lie,and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,who is blessed for ever.Amen

BibleGateway.com is a very good site for seeing the differences in the different Bible versions.
"


You stopped at verse 25. So how can you compare translations? Very deceptive

I do not deny paganism is described in 21-25. However, it does not change the position on homosexuality one bit and I can prove it.

Ok the paganism is described in the verse you quoted Rom 1:21-25

Here lets look at the correct verses in the KJV then...


verse 26
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"


Note "For this cause" refers to the paganism described just above...

OK but what did God do about the paganism?

"God gave them up unto vile affections" Vile affections

Vike comes from the Greek atimia which means dishonour, ignominy, disgrace
cf.blueletterbible.org...

That is stone cold clear! VILE AFFECTIONS



27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.



I pointed out in the post above whether it was a pagan ritual or not does not change the fact of how the act is described.

"Leaving the natural use of the woman" for the unnatural "men with men"

How does "burned in their lust one toward another" have anything to do with this pagan ritual?

It doesn't! Its just a deflection from the clear teaching against homosexuality



[edit on 4/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I didn't add the other verses because they have already been quoted.My point was to show that around such verses as 27,Paul is talking only of pagan ceremonies.

My mention of BibleGateway is for those who would be interested in comparing translations,not just the ones we are discussing.

Apologies for not making that clear.





That is stone cold clear! VILE AFFECTIONS


Yes,the pagans were seen by the Jews as dishonoring/disgracing their faith,their temples and their bodies.Why bodies? Because temple males and females who participated in sexual ceremonies,like the ones for the Goddess Aphrodite,were seen as nothing better as whores,or temple prostitutes,a term found in many ancient documents and plays.There is a belief that some ceremonies would descend into orgies,another form of dishonor.






I pointed out in the post above whether it was a pagan ritual or not does not change the fact of how the act is described.

"Leaving the natural use of the woman" for the unnatural "men with men"



Verse 26 reads..."for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

First you have to define what they mean by "natural use."
Is it sex? Is it motherhood? Is it being a housewife?
If a woman decides she isn't going to be a mother and a housewife,wouldn't she be seen as going against nature by those who thinks that thats all women are good for?





How does "burned in their lust one toward another" have anything to do with this pagan ritual?


Ceremonies & rituals involving sex are bound to be intense,so those taking part would be full of passion and lust.
The line that follows the one above says that the men were "working that which is unseemly." Unseemly means inappropriate,which means that their behaviour was unacceptable to the Jews.



Contrary to popular belief homosexuals are not sex crazed.
We have feeling & emotions.We have relationships just like straight people and we can fall in love just like straight people.
Yet most religious folk would have you think that we're a bunch of drooling perverts who care only about getting our leg over whenever and wherever we can and with as many people as possible!!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:


It is abundantly clear to me that the vileness of the affections is referring to the same sex nature of the encounter only. Anything beyond that is just grasping at straws to excuse sin.

"Leaving the natural use of the woman" for "men with men" obviously infers that "men with men" is not natural.

What do the Latter Day Saints believe? So do Mormons condone homosexuality jakyll ?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
OK I found this at Religious Tolerance.org



Current LDS beliefs about homosexuality:

Mormons refer to homosexuals as being "same-sex attracted." Their current beliefs are similar to that of most other conservative Christian churches. They believe that:

  1. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.
  2. All homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, irrespective of the love and commitment of partners in a same-sex relationship.
  3. Homosexuality is caused by dysfunctional parenting, typically by an overbearing mother and emotionally distant father
  4. It can be cured through reparative therapy, repentance, and prayer.


www.religioustolerance.org...


Homosexuality

"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord. "People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are. "We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).


LDS

jakyll I thought you said you were a mormon?






[edit on 4/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by InterestedObserver
 




Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.( Ezekiel 16: 49-50 )


This scripture does not say, and committed abominations before me but speaks of one single act: and committed abomination before me .

Like I stated in my original post, the iniquity is clearly laid out and consists of:
Pride
Fulness of bread
Abundance of idleness
Haughtiness
Neglect of poor and needy

These five are the iniquity but, they ALSO committed an ABOMINATION . What was that Abomination then? It wasn't the five acts of iniquity which have been laid out. The Abomination leaves only one other thing which these were gulity of:
Sodomy

Don't confuse Iniquity with Abomination




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join