748. Is Sodomy A Sin?

Bobby uses the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah to answer whether or not sodomy is a sin.

[MGS.]

It is outside marriage it is not inside marriage.

[trucomment]

the thing i dont get is that there is a collective attributes that could be deemed heinous and maybe extending homosexual invitations to angels sent from god was just the straw that broke the camels back instead of the one vile act.

[HappyHermitt]

Sorry but your opinion doesnt override the bible.

[idkwis]

I believe it is allowed only with your spouse and if your spouse is not of the same gender as you

[scented-leafpelargonium]

You speak very confidently of the homosexual story of Sodom, but without trying to deny where the Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms in both the Old and the New Testaments as some might attempt to do, I do believe the Hebrew has more context.

Yes, the Hebrew word NEDAH used in the passage, related to the root word YADAH, meaning "to know" is often used to mean sexual intimacy elsewhere in the Bible, and that is the clear intention of the word here too. However, my contention would be with the limited understanding of the average English reader of the word in Hebrew rendered here as "men."

There are four ways to say "men" or "man" in Hebrew: ADAM, ISH, GEVER & ANUSH/ANASHIM. The word used here in verse 4 for "men of Sodom" is the word ANASHIM, but it gets hyphenated as per Hebrew grammar into the contracted form "ANSHEI S'DOM".

In verse 5 where the word "men" is not connected to another word or placename it appears as "ANASHIM". This word is related to the root word "ANUSH" which means "human, " so it is not intrinsically or exclusively either male or female, but as in English "human" includes both sexes. So it is with ANASHIM, although Hebrew is a very chauvinistic language grammatically whereby the male plural is used when describing both males and females.

There is male and female singular and male amd female plural, but the male always dominates. For instance with the word for "child" which is "YELED" in male singular, meaning a "boy." For a female it become "YELDAH" or "girl." The male plural is "YELEDIM" and the female plural is "YELADOT." However, the male plural can include females. 100 YELEDOT would be solely "girls, " but add one boy or "YELED" to the girls and you have 101 "YELEDIM", which is literally "boys" yet it includes 100 girls! "YELEDIM" therefore is best understood as "children" although grammtically they are described as male only.

So it is with the English translators who have seen the male plural "ANASHIM" and correctly rendered as per grammar as "men", yet the male plural, as with all Hebrew words, can include females too, and so it is more properly understood as "people" or "humans."

The translators do the very opposite in the story of the Exodus where the Hebrew describes the people of Israel as "B'NEI ISRAEL", another hyphenated two words meaning in male plural "SONS OF ISRAEL, " yet they chose not to render it as male only, as with "men, " but put "CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" instead! The Hebrew does not say "YELDEI ISRAEL, " for "children, " but MALE SONS, but of course as with all male plurals they can include females.

Obviously the term "Sons of Israel" may have sounded too much like a male-only mliitary army passing through the desert by this description, rather than familes that included women and children, however their choice of "children" does also sound rather infantile.

So why not use the make plural in one case and not in another? Of course the word "men" as a male plural is used throughout the Scriptures, including in the New Testament to describe groups of both men and women, such as at the Ascension, where the angels say, "Men of Galilee.." The women followed Yeshua even when the men fled, were at the cross and at His tomb and there were surely some there on the Mount of Olives when He ascended.

The same applies when Peter addresses the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, which was a pilgrim feast ("Shavuot") which required whole families to come to Jerusalem, so women and men and children would be present, yet the passage uses the term "men of Jerusalem."

Also other male plural terms such as "sons of God" etc., all include females, even though it may not actually say "sons and daughters of God, " but the male plural includes both sexes.

With this knowledge of the Hebrew grammar a Hebrew reader reading Genesis 19:4 would understand the word ANASHIM to mean "people" although it could ostensibly be only men, but for that to be known we must examine the context, and in the case of Gentiles deciding it is "men only" and thus jump to the conclusion of male homosexuality they are very hasty.

God never leaves doubt, and where something is to be clarified He always provides the means and He does it in this very verse by backing up the description in the text with a second word. If one reads on in the same verse (and this often overlooked by people eager to jump on the "homosexual" story) there is the English word "PEOPLE" which describes the "PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER" (of the city). So this matches the description of "men" in male plural as "PEOPLE, " not exclusively males as is hoped by the rabid condemners.

This second word is the small Hebrew word "AM" which is the SINGULAR word for "people, " as in "AM ISRAEL" or the "People of Israel, " whereas "ANASHIM" means a group of indivuals, but "people" nonetheless. Both words are used, and the second word clarifies the first.

Thus you are right about Lot being stupid to offer his two daughters to exclusively male homosexuals, as that would be futile, but rather he was offering his two daughters to the beying mob of townsfolk of both sexes who wanted a lust filled orgy with every depravity and to molest the two angelic guests as they were "strange flesh" as mentioned in Jude.

Besides, the fate of BOTH cities was already determined in the previous chapter when Abraham bargains with the LORD over how many righteous were in the cities, but there was only his nephew Lot and his family as the number was so low. The angels were dispatched simply to rescue Lot from the destruction. It was not caused by this one incident.

If that were the case then God owes Gomorrah an apology for no incident happened there.

Read the passage afresh using the word "people" instead of "men" and you will see the passage in a fresh but more accurate light as the original Hebrew intended it to be read.

This in no way inpugns where God condemns homosexuality elsewhere, but the Hebrew grammar does not support a male-only homosexual assault outside the house in Sodom.

I know many do not like to hear something other than what their pastors teach them, and this is not some excuse to excuse homosexuality. It is simply finding truth in God's Word.

I had to write after you mentioned the homosexual claim in your well intentioned video.



Shalom 🌿🕊

[Frank]

What about hetero sodomy is bad ? Looks fun though.

[dexterseamusgaming]

Didnt even answered it with a yes or no

[zacharyrivas]

I know sodomy is a sin, but I struggle what this word means. Some people say that it's homosexuality but other people says that means anal or oral sex. Can anyone help me?

[edwardtjbrown]

Based on the Bible, the answer is "No". Sodomy is not a sin, unless it involves minors, violence or something like that.

[tylerlawlerDEVGRU]

Tori Lane was my favorite as a teenager.