A Word in Translation: Genesis 19:5

[Dash]

In another thread, Tdogg recently expressed what is a common concern regarding translation--that is, how do we know that the Bible has been translated correctly?* Blossom responded to mention that the many different translations are remarkably accurate, with rare variances due to the difficulty of translating idiomatic expressions out of the original language. She suggested reading the same Bible passage in several different translations--an excellent suggestion that made me think about some previous (much briefer) work I had posted on the UMC Forums. Blossom further encouraged tdogg that faith questions about translations did not necessarily need to be ones that confused us. Sometimes though particular minority...or should I say "disempowered"...groups like gays and lesbians have points of particular concern regarding Biblical translation. This post is about one such point...

[*struck text, with apologies to Blossom]:
The answer came back, "That's not something you need to worry about." I suppose in many ways, that answer is true. On the other hand, there are some points at which concern may be warranted.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Genesis 19. At one point in the narrative, the men of Sodom call to Lot in his home saying: "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (King James Version) One of the major beatings that gay and lesbian folk receive from conservative Christianity in Genesis is based on the idea that what the men of Sodom were "really" saying is "We want to have sex with them." This is based on the fact that out of the 943 times that the Hebrew verb "yada" or "to know" appears, some 10 times it refers idiomatically to a woman having sexual knowledge of a man. In fact, immediately after the men of Sodom call out the visitors, Lot offers his daughters to them, saying they "have never known a man."

Now the other times that male homosexual intercourse is mentioned, the operative word is
"shakab" which is rendered "to lie with." Perhaps there was a play on words that was intended by the choice of words in the Genesis 19 passage, but the direction that "black pun" was intended to take would not be any clearer, in my opinion, for recognizing its presence. The ambiguity is the most remarkable feature of this word-usage, and the translator, reader, or interpreter must make a choice about how they are going to use it.

We must always make a choice about how we will use the Bible.

Below I give what I find to be a very enlightening list of translations of Genesis 19:5. I included as many foreign language texts as I could, using online dictionaries and machine translators to get at least an idea of how the text was rendered. Where I was less confident of my understanding I noted it with an asterisk (*)--although the verb "to know" is pretty clearly different than the phrase "to have sex." Even machine translators, as crude as they may be, probably wouldn't mistake the connotation. Where I could find publication or copyright dates I provided them.

There does appear to be something of a trend: modern translations beginning in the mid-20th Century are now translating the original text to mean "have sex." This seems especially true of American English translations. I need to make a trip to the bookstore to flip through more English editions, though. All of these texts were accessed online, so this list doesn't represent all modern (ie. still in copyright) editions, I'm sure. The removal of the ambiguity inherent in the original Hebrew has a profound effect on the understanding of the story, and even perhaps an effect on culture--or perhaps it merely reflects culture.

In any case, I've been fascinated by this growing list, and have been wondering about the implications of the choices that translators have made throughout biblical history.

_________
Texts that use the verb "to know":

Hebrew, Torah: yada = "know" (c. 1280 B.C.E.)

Greek, Septuagint: συγγενωμεθα (suggenometha) = "know" (3rd - 1st century B.C.E.)[Note: This Greek word basically means to "get acquainted," but like the Hebrew "yada," it does occur a few times in ancient texts in similar idiomatic use implying sexual knowledge.]Latin Vulgate: cognoscamus = "know" (5th century)

English:
Wycliff Bible: "that we `knowe hem" (1395)
Miles Coverdale Bible: "that we maye knowe them" (1535)
The Geneva Bible: "that we may knowe them" (1587)
The Bishop's Bible: "that we may knowe them" (1568)
Douay-Rheims Bible: "know" (1764 revision)
King James Version "know" (1611)
Webster Bible Translation: "know" (1833)
Young's Literal Translation "know" (1898)
Darby Translation "know" (1890)
American Standard "know" (1901)
Jewish Publication Society Old Testament: "know" (1917)
21st Century King James Version "know" (1994)
English Standard "know"(2001)

French:
Bible Martin: connaissions = "know" (1744)
Darby: connaissions = "know" (1872)
Louis Segond: connaissions = "know" (1910)
La Bible Catholique Crampon: connaissions = "know" (1923)
La Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible: connaissions = "know"

Spanish
Sagradas Escrituras: conozcamos = "know" (1569)
Reina-Valera Antigua: conozcamos = "know" (1569 & 1602)
Reina-Valera 1960: conozcamos = "know" (1960)
La Sagrada Biblia: conozcamos = "know" (1978)
La Biblia de las Américas: conozcamos = "know" (1986-1997)

German:
Elberfelder: erkennen = "know" (1871-1985)
Luther Bible: erkennen = "know" (1545)
Schlachter: erkennen = "know" (1951)

Italian:
La nuova Diodati: conoscere = "know" (1991)
Luzzi/Riveduta: conosciamo = "know"

Others:
Portuguese, by João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada: conheçamos = "know" (1628-1691)
Russian, Synodal Version: познаем = "know" (1876)
Bulgarian: познаем = "knowledge" (1940)
Icelandic: kenna = "know"
Japanese (新改譯): 彼らをよく 知りたいのだ = "know"
Japanese (口語譯): われわれは 彼らを 知るであろう = "know"
*Afrikaans: beken = "know" (1953)
*Albanian: njohim = "meet"
*Czech: poznáme = "know"
*Dutch: bekennen = "profess/confess"
*Greek, Moderne: γνωρισωμεν (gnorisomen) = "know"
*Hungarian: ismerjük = "know"
*Maori Bible: mohio = "know"
*Vietnamese: biết = "know"
__________________________________
Texts that use verbs meaning "sex":

Old English:
Junius Manuscript (poetic paraphrase): hæman = "intercourse" (c. 1000)

English:
Tyndale Bible: "do oure lust with them" (1534)
Bible in Basic English: "take our pleasure with" (1949)
Amplified Bible: "know (be intimate with) them" (1954-1987)
New American Standard: "have relations" (1960-1995)
New Life "have sex" (1969)
New International Version "have sex" (1973-1984)
New King James Version "know them carnally" (1982)
The Message: "have our sport with" (1993-2002)
Contemporary English "have sex" (1995)
New Living Translation "have sex" (1996)
New International Reader's Version: "have sex with" (1996-1998)
Holman Christian Standard Bible: "have sex with" (1999-2003)
Today's New International Version: "have sex with" (2001-2005)
World English Bible: "have sex" (still in draft version)
The Net Bible: "have sex" (1996-2005)

French:
Bible en Français Courant: prendre notre plaisir = take our pleasure (1997)
La Bible du Semeur: couchions avec = "sleep with" (1999)
Bible de Jerusalem: en abusions = "misuse" (2003)
La Bible Chouraqui: pénétrons-les = "penetrate"
Bible des Témoins de Jéhovah (Jehovah's Witnesses): ayons des relations = "have relations"

German:
Einheitsübersetzung: mit ihnen verkehren = "to consort with" (1960-1980)
Lutherbible (revised): über sie hermachen = "set or pounce upon" (1984)
Gute Nachricht Bibel: mit ihnen Verkehr haben = "have intercourse with" (2000)

Spanish:
Nueva Versión Internacional: acostarnos = "lie down with" (1999)
Traducción del Nuevo Mundo de las Santas Escrituras (Jeh. Wit): tengamos ayuntamiento = "have sex"

Reina-Valera 1995: conozcamos = "know" (1995)[Note: This is the most recent Reina-Valera edition. It keeps the same translation as those listed in the previous section, but adds the following commentary:


"Conozcamos: es decir, Tengamos relación sexual con ellos. La pretensión de los habitantes de Sodoma incluye dos delitos: la perversión sexual y la violación de la ley de la hospitalidad. Acerca del primero de estos pecados, cf. Lv 18.22; 20.13; Dt 23.17-18; Ro 1.26-27."


"That is to say, "we may have sexual relations with them. The pretensions of the inhabitants of Sodom included two crimes: sexual perversion and violation of the law of hospitality. About the first of these sins, cf. ... etc.]
Italian:
C.E.I/Gerusalemme: abusarne = "misuse" (1986)
Nuovo Riveduta: abusare = "misuse"
Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo delle Sacre Scritture (Jeh. Wit.): rapporti = "relations"

Other:
Haitian Creole: kouche = "sleep"
Chinese NCV: 我們要與他們同房。= "sexual intercourse with them"
*Portuguese, O livro: "possuí-los" = "possess them" (2000)
___________________________________

[One last note: I have the East Asian fonts activated on my computer. If they are not on your computer, you may not see some of these texts correctly....sorry.]

[Steven E. Webster]

Dash,

Fascinating! I really like your comment about the fact that translating the Hebrew "yada" by any other word than "know" is an interpretive decision forcing a certain meaning on the text (namely a sexual meaning) that is, in fact, ambiguous in the original. An important observation.

I also observe that Hebrew (like alot of languages/cultures) is generally very reticent about sex. They tend to use lots and lots of euphemisms, like "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in unto" (as in "Adam went in unto his wife Eve and she conceived").

This reticence of scripture to speak about sex is one of the barriers we inevitably run up against when our adversaries demand that we produce a scripture text that offers a positive example of same-gender love being expressed physically. The fact is that the Bible hardly even tells us that about heterosexual love. The Song of Songs gets kind of graphic, but euphemism abounds even there.

Most scholars believe that the ancient Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh presents a model homosexual relationship--but even there it is hinted at through euphemism and allusion. In Ecclesiastes, chapter 4 there is an apparent quotation from that epic of Gilgamesh. I believe those verses, including the reference to the "three fold cord" to be a celebration of same-gender love. I am convinced of it, but the ambiguity will always be such that "conservative Christians" will always deny it.

"Yada," "know" is also ambiguous--but the conservative Christians are sure they know what THAT means.

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

Just to make sure I understand - the translations in the bottom half of your listing are considered the newer translations, the upper half, the older ones?

This is fascinating! Do you know of anyone who may have done this research on a majority of controversial translations and possibly written a book? Well of not, I vote for you!

Thanks for the research and thought that you put into this one, looking forward to hearing what else you find. This is exactly what I was talking about, and feel it is not only important, it is imperative that people understand the history that has taken place over the centuries in translating the original scriptures. Not to forget that even the original scriptures were penned by imperfect humans. All but 2 of the examples of adding the connotation of 'sex' are from the 20th & 21st centuries - WOW! Just a bit self-serving of those who came up with the wording....

[Dash]

Just to make sure I understand - the translations in the bottom half of your listing are considered the newer translations, the upper half, the older ones?

Not quite, tdogg. The uppr half represents texts that basically mean "to know" while the bottom half shows translations that mean "to have sex."

I'm going to edit the post to make that more clear in just a sec.

[tdogg]

It is interesting though, that the translations meaning "to have sex" are for all means and purposes done later (as in dates) than those meaning "to know." It seems that sometime in the 20th century, translaters got on a roll with sex in general!

Funny, from the King James Version, I never got 'sex' out of reading the Sodom story. Of course, later using the New King James Version, there is a lot more sex in the text!

[Dash]

It is interesting though, that the translations meaning "to have sex" are for all means and purposes done later (as in dates) than those meaning "to know." It seems that sometime in the 20th century, translaters got on a roll with sex in general!

Funny, from the King James Version, I never got 'sex' out of reading the Sodom story. Of course, later using the New King James Version, there is a lot more sex in the text!

Absolutely, tdogg. Interesting too...notice that the "21st Century KJV" (1994) has gone back to "know."

[Dash]

Most scholars believe that the ancient Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh presents a model homosexual relationship--but even there it is hinted at through euphemism and allusion. In Ecclesiastes, chapter 4 there is an apparent quotation from that epic of Gilgamesh. I believe those verses, including the reference to the "three fold cord" to be a celebration of same-gender love. I am convinced of it, but the ambiguity will always be such that "conservative Christians" will always deny it.

That's awesome! I have been meaning to read the Epic of Gilgamesh for years now!!

Hey!!!! What're you doin' here??? Shouldn't you be out getting to "know" someone right now, Mr. "I'm-all-married-and-cool-now"???

:laughing: :shifty: :shield:

[Blossom]

In another thread, Tdogg recently expressed what is a common concern regarding translation--that is, how do we know that the Bible has been translated correctly? The answer came back, "That's not something you need to worry about." [/I]

Dash, do you even read what I write? I am indeed concerned with traslation issues. Although I have found that translations are remarkably accurate, that doesn't mean that there will not be further discussions of specific words--that's par for the course in scholarship. The main point I wanted to make, however, was that even if there were numerous errors in translation this would not speak to the validity of the original documents. That issue requires a totally different line of logic.

[Dash]

Dash, do you even read what I write? I am indeed concerned with traslation issues. Although I have found that translations are remarkably accurate, that doesn't mean that there will not be further discussions of specific words--that's par for the course in scholarship. The main point I wanted to make, however, was that even if there were numerous errors in translation this would not speak to the validity of the original documents. That issue requires a totally different line of logic.

I'm sorry, Blossom. I did not mean to offend or even contradict you. I only mentioned the tdogg's question and the response, to give my post some context. And, it's true, I did not go back to look at your post when I wrote mine today. I'm happy to edit this one to reflect a fairer representation of your previous statements. Please don't be mad at me. I didn't set out to debate your points at all. My brain just followed it's own path of interest, which was suggested by the interchange between you girls.

And, it is entirely possible that I missed the main point of your post, because other aspects of it captured my imagination.

I do agree with you that the original texts are probably remarkably preserved. And even in that area, I'm pretty ignorant. This thread is just a sample of my own casual...well, it's hard to call it research or scholarship...just a brief documentation of what I have seen.

:)

[Blossom]

Thanks for the edit, Dash.

Concerning the Hebrew term yada, it can refer to sex. I've quoted two cases of it below, including the text in question (I'm using the New Revised Standard Version):

NRS Genesis 4:1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD."

NRS Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."


With the first, you don't need context at all to understand it. Yada leads to a baby...not too hard to figure out. :) Then, with Gen. 19:5, yada is used again. The sentence doesn't define the term itself, but as you mentioned earlier, the offer of these girls who haven't known a man reflects what is going on here. You don't offer virgin girls to someone who just wants to have a nice chat with the strangers.

Hope I'm understanding where you are going with this. By the way, even a conservative such as myself would not use this text to refer to homosexuality. This is a clear case of gang rape, not an issue of consensual same-gender sex.


Oh, and the issue of whether or not to translate these instances of yada as either know or have sex could reflect our culture's more recent ability to deal with reading the word SEX in the Bible. Goodness, is it really O.K. to mention sex in the Bible?

Also, Bible translations such as KJV, NASB, and NRSV keep closer to the exact wording (sometimes called a more wooden translation) of the text without helping the reader out by using the words we would likely use to get across the same idea today. NIV, and especially NLT work at translating the idea and not just the specific words. This can really help people understand the Bible. This freer style of translation obviously moves into the deeper issue of interpretation, but I think that in the case of yada in the Sodom story, giving a more modern translation helps clarify the story line. I would recommend the NRSV (my favorite translation--it is inclusive) for Bible study, as less interpretation has gone into it and we are more likely to see some of the original literary devices used by the authors. But for devotional time (when you are not analyzing structure, etc.) the NLT is great...it feels like a nice story. Plus, the NLT is a better, truer translation than the earlier, and wildly poplular Living Bible. For anyone who read through this last paragraph, you get a gold star.

[Steven E. Webster]

I do agree with you that the original texts are probably remarkably preserved.
:)

I agree there are texts which are remarkably preserved in the scriptures--however I have a little problem with the idea of "original texts." Take the book of Genesis, it seems to be the work of an editor or editors working from collections of more ancient sources (scholars reconstruct these sources and give them names like J, E and P). Is there really an "original text" of Genesis, or did Genesis evolve gradually from a collection of various ancient sources? At some point the text of Genesis was "fixed"--and after that point scribes sought to preserve the text as faithfully as possible, but prior to that point our knowledge of the development and editing of the text of Genesis is very limited--we just know that such a process seems to have occured.

I affirm the authority of the Bible--but it's authority does not arise from its ever having been dictated word for word by God. I believe the Bible is revelatory, but revelation doesn't come simply from the literal words--the present action of the Holy Spirit is required for scripture to be revelatory.

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

Dash laid the different translations and meaning out pretty clearly - thanks for that buddy! :cowboy: I really appreciate how you simply listed the version, year and word(s) - very clear, very concise and simple. I think it would extremely interesting and worthwhile to do the same to other verses as well. I wonder if part of the problem with the newer translations is that the closer one gets to the 1900's, the more constricted and embarrassing sex and related topics seem to become to the general population. Perhaps those involved in coming up with their translation have an unconscious issue with sex and have a need to portray it as a bad thing. Perhaps I'm totally off with it, but think about the possibility of that having even a small bit of validity.

Blossom, when was the New Revised Standard Version born? It would be interesting to see if it falls in the newer bunch (say 1900's or even 2000's?). Since it is a "New" and "Revised" I'm assuming it probably does.

Dash - in referring to Steven's wedding night - would that be "know" or "KNOW"??? Hope you are having the time of your life Steven! You and your sweetie!!! Hooray! Now get off the darn computer and get back to your man! :love:

[Dash]

Thanks for the edit, Dash.

Concerning the Hebrew term yada, it can refer to sex. I've quoted two cases of it below, including the text in question (I'm using the New Revised Standard Version):

NRS Genesis 4:1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD."

NRS Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."


With the first, you don't need context at all to understand it. Yada leads to a baby...not too hard to figure out. :) Then, with Gen. 19:5, yada is used again. The sentence doesn't define the term itself, but as you mentioned earlier, the offer of these girls who haven't known a man reflects what is going on here. You don't offer virgin girls to someone who just wants to have a nice chat with the strangers.

Hope I'm understanding where you are going with this. By the way, even a conservative such as myself would not use this text to refer to homosexuality. This is a clear case of gang rape, not an issue of consensual same-gender sex.


Oh, and the issue of whether or not to translate these instances of yada as either know or have sex could reflect our culture's more recent ability to deal with reading the word SEX in the Bible. Goodness, is it really O.K. to mention sex in the Bible?

Also, Bible translations such as KJV, NASB, and NRSV keep closer to the exact wording (sometimes called a more wooden translation) of the text without helping the reader out by using the words we would likely use to get across the same idea today. NIV, and especially NLT work at translating the idea and not just the specific words. This can really help people understand the Bible. This freer style of translation obviously moves into the deeper issue of interpretation, but I think that in the case of yada in the Sodom story, giving a more modern translation helps clarify the story line. I would recommend the NRSV (my favorite translation--it is inclusive) for Bible study, as less interpretation has gone into it and we are more likely to see some of the original literary devices used by the authors. But for devotional time (when you are not analyzing structure, etc.) the NLT is great...it feels like a nice story. Plus, the NLT is a better, truer translation than the earlier, and wildly poplular Living Bible. For anyone who read through this last paragraph, you get a gold star.

You know, we dealt with this...you and I...over on the UMC Forums. I'm really done arguing with you. Don't bait me. :) Let's just be friends.

[Steven E. Webster]

Hope I'm understanding where you are going with this. By the way, even a conservative such as myself would not use this text to refer to homosexuality. This is a clear case of gang rape, not an issue of consensual same-gender sex.



Blossom,
This was a good post--not just the snippet I quote above, but the whole thing. I did not follow in detail the dialogue you had with Dash over on the UMC board, so I don't know how that went. But I agree with BOTH Dash and Blossom in this thread so far.

Blossom's interpretation of "know" in the Sodom story is plausible, but Dash is also correct that "know" is ambiguous--it is.

The most important point that Blossom makes is that the Sodom story is not about homosexuality. However, Blossom is overly generous to "Conservative Christians" when she suggests that "Conservative Christians" don't still use the "sin of Sodom" as a synonym for homosexuality. Many still do, and in my experience, I would have to suggest that Blossom is somewhere in the "liberal wing" of "Conservative Chrisitians." All the better.

In the end, the labels "conservative" and "liberal" do not serve us very well.

Blossom also won points with me by recommending the NRSV.

Steven E. Webster

[Blossom]

Hi tdogg,
Yes, the NRSV is pretty new, I think from 1989. The original RSV came out maybe in the 60's (check me on that). Many people did not welcome it--and many still resent the fact that it is gender inclusive. There are a few places where this inclusiveness messes up the translation, but it usually works out well. It is difficult to find this version in many bookstores, esp. Baptist bookstores. But you can find it at secular bookstores (Barnes and Noble, Borders) and especially at the Methodist bookstore "Cokesbury". If you are interested in reading a nice summary of the NRSV, I found this site on the web--from a quick look, it seemed to be helpful:

http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html

Dash,
I wasn't baiting you. I was adding some info. that could be helpful to those who read your post.

Steven,
Yes, many conservatives use the Sodom story against homosexuals. But I don't think that many O.T. conservative scholars would. And of course, always keep in mind the spectrum within who is called conservative--esp. considering the fact that a conservative Methodist is a liberal Baptist!:)


Blossom

[Jamie McDaniel]

Many people did not welcome it--and many still resent the fact that it is gender inclusive. It is difficult to find this version in many bookstores, esp. Baptist bookstores.
There is a currently a similiar dispute (mostly among evangelicals and fundamentalists) involving the new TNIV (Today's New International Version.) I grew up owning (though rarely reading) the King James Version and it wasn't until college that I got serious about faith. I remember attending a Southern Baptist church where the others all had Bibles with NIV on the cover. "What was that?" I wondered. Up until that point, I had been clueless about different translations. Now I own this Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Parallel-Bible-Apocryphal-Deuterocanonical/dp/019528318X/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/002-2796671-5730426?ie=UTF8). Anyway the TNIV is gender-inclusive. Evangelicals are mostly for it, while fundamentalists are very opposed to it. And you are right, if you find a NRSV in a Lifeway bookstore it is likely someone ordered the wrong shipment.

...always keep in mind the spectrum within who is called conservative--esp. considering the fact that a conservative Methodist is a liberal Baptist!:)

The fundamentalist resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (1979-present) and the publicity of independent Baptists such as Jerry Falwell have done much to distort the Baptist image. That is sad given the history of early Baptists in America, such as Roger Williams who championed religious liberty.

I also like to read the famous 1922 sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win? (http://www.historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/)" by Harry Emerson Fosdick, a liberal Baptist preacher who became pastor of Riverside Church in New York. And Riverside Church is where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., another Baptist, preached his "Beyond Vietnam" sermon where he condemned the war.

[Blossom]

Hi Jamie,

Just thought I would officially say "hello" to you. I attended Asbury Theological Seminary from '98-'02, which you likely know is very close to Lexington. I certainly enjoyed living in Kentucky, and especially like the Lexington area. In a strange turn of events, after moving back to my home state of TX, my husband and I have moved to Ohio. Of the many things that I miss about the South, good Mexican food is pretty high on the list. I would rather eat a frozen Mexican meal than some of the tamales I've had here! We've ventured to Lexington a couple times in the past year to eat at a Mexican place there--"El Chico"--good stuff.

Have a great day,
Blossom

[Dash]

So two cowboys walk into a saloon...

They are tall and dust-ridden, with the quiet confidence of those who generally keep their own company but aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd. They ignore the turning heads...the eyes peering over fanning poker cards...the eyes peering from under broad-brimmed hats. Straight to the bar they go, and with a boot on the brass rail, they nod sociably to the bartender.

"What'll it be boys?"

"Two shots of the hardest whiskey you got in your cellar," says one.

"Comin' right up."

The bartender wipes a couple glasses on his apron and pours the copper liquor before the men.

"I'm Shorty. If you need anything else, just let me know."

"Thanks mister," one of the strangers says. "Say...we just rode in from Wichita. Is there a place we can stay the night?"

"You're welcome to stay here. It's a dollar a night, and you'll have the company of Elli and Nina. Unfortunately there's no proper hotel in town yet."

"Well, that sounds mighty nice, but maybe we'll just set up with our horses on the ground again."

"Suit yourself, though I wouldn't recommend it," Shorty warns. Then, lowering his voice and leaning in, "There's some mean folk in these parts, that don't get on with strangers."

Upon that invocation, the saloon doors clatter back against the walls, and six lanky roughs stride in fingering their pistols and scratching themselves. They leer back at the patrons with tobacco-stained grins, laughing their fetid breath in clouds that smell like a pig trough.

"Shorty! What're you sayin' to them strangers?"

"Now, gentlemen, don't let's cause any trouble in my saloon. You leave these visitors alone, and go play yourselves some gin rummy. I'll get y'all a drink or two while you find a table."

"We don't want to play no gin rummy! And we don't want none a your piss-thinned whiskey! We want to know these two riders that you been talkin' to!"

"Come on, boys. I said, you leave these men alone! They're not doin' nobody any harm. Why don't you just go upstairs and get to know Elli and Nina instead."

The two cowboys regard the menacing group calmly. They haven't moved yet except to finish their drinks. "Shorty," one says, "Thanks for the whiskey." He sets a coin on the bar and they turn.

"Where do you think yer goin'?" one of the gang says, thrusting his chin at the cowboys.

"Well, I reckon we're gonna go fetch our horses and bed up for the night. In the morning we'll be continuing on our way back to the Cimmarron River. If that's okay with you."

He brushes back the side of his jacket to reveal a distinctive black steel pistol. Its carved ebony handle gleams darkly against the leather holster. A row of close-set notches are cut into barrel.

"Say, mister. You're not...why, your not the Cimmarron Kid are ya? I hear he has a black gun just like that." He steps back, leaving his nervous laughter and the stench of pig-breath where he was standing.

"As a matter of fact," says the cowboy, "I am, and I'm sure you'll recognize my friend here, Pecos Pete."

"Uhh...yeah, we know who ya are, now, misters. Don't be mad. We didn't mean no harm by askin'."

"I'm sure you didn't. Now why don't you git, before the black widow earns herself another notch."

In a sudden flash of night, the pistol is in his hand. As fast as you could drain a shot glass, there are six holes in six hats, and the Cimmarron Kid is dumping spent cartridges on the floor. Pecos Pete's gun follows the hasty trail of departing troublemakers as they chase each other out into the street.

***

"That's some fine gunsmanship, mister," Shorty grins as he pours another round of shots for the men. "I reckon those boys'll be thinkin' hard on the lesson you taught 'em. I hear you been guarding the cattle drives along the trail. You fellas have saved a lotta good cowboys from rustlers."

"It's a livin'," says Pete. "Say, Shorty, what do you suppose them folks been eatin'? That was some jack-nasty halitosis they brought in here!

"That it was, mister." Shorty waves a hand in front of his face. "That it was."

_______________________

End of Chapter Questions:

1. The troublemakers wanted to "know" the two strangers, and Shorty told them to go upstairs and "get to know" Elli and Nina. Did the gang want to "know" the cowboys in the same way Shorty implied they could "know" the girls?

2. Shorty could have just as easily told the gang to go upstairs and have sex with the girls. Why do you suppose the writer placed the same verb "know" in Shorty's mouth?

3. If you were to translate this story into another language, what do you think would be the best way to get all the writer intended across to your readers?

3. What offense did the gang bring to the Saloon and to the Cimmarron Kid and Pecos Pete?

***
Alright...turn in your answers. They will be graded.

[Daniel]

End of Chapter Questions:

1. The troublemakers wanted to "know" the two strangers, and Shorty told them to go upstairs and "get to know" Elli and Nina. Did the gang want to "know" the cowboys in the same way Shorty implied they could "know" the girls?

(Drawling) I reckon not. In the first case, the gang wants to check the two men out. It's about territory, not sex. Sniff. Sniff.

2. Shorty could have just as easily told the gang to go upstairs and have sex with the girls. Why do you suppose the writer placed the same verb "know" in Shorty's mouth?

Shorty is smart. He's trying to redirect the attention of the gang. Just the sort of thing you do with men who act like children.

3. If you were to translate this story into another language, what do you think would be the best way to get all the writer intended across to your readers?

Simplify. You use the same word, otherwise, you change the meaning. :D

4. What offense did the gang bring to the Saloon and to the Cimmarron Kid and Pecos Pete?

Bad breath and attitude. A winning combination.

***
Alright...turn in your answers. They will be graded.

How's I do?

[Dash]

You get an A++ Daniel!! Extra points for the cowboy accent!:D

[Blossom]

"[I]Thanks mister," one of the strangers says. "Say...we just rode in from Wichita. Is there a place we can stay the night?"

"You're welcome to stay here. It's a dollar a night, and you'll have the company of Elli and Nina. Unfortunately there's no proper hotel in town yet."[/INDENT]


Interesting that you present Lot...er....Shorty as whoring out his daughters to any one (his engaged daughters, by the way). Not likely that the angels would save Shorty/Lot if this were the case.

Also, Lot calls what these men are about to do "wicked".

[Daniel]

Interesting that you present Lot...er....Shorty as whoring out his daughters to any one (his engaged daughters, by the way). Not likely that the angels would save Shorty/Lot if this were the case.

Also, Lot calls what these men are about to do "wicked".

Interesting indeed.

Interesting that my version at hand says "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly". Too bad Genesis 13:13 doesn't spell what that wickedness and sin is. Of course, conservatives believe this to be the sin of male rape- the act of male intercourse- and the very essence of the word 'homosexual'. That's what the story is all about for them. (Interesting that modern conservatives lump male rape in with the word homosexuality which wasn't invented until the 1880's- as if male rape and homosexuality were the same thing.)

Interesting that the version in question here,13: 13, does not refer to the particpants of the story as much as it does to every man in the city. "But the men of Sodom...." (Hmmmm. Does that mean the Lesbians were the righteous ones? Oh. But I forget. Perhaps, like Queen Victoria, conservatives think there are no Lesbians.)

Interesting that it isn't Lot who yaks about the sin and wickness of the men of Sodom, but rather the 'narrator', whoever that is.

Interesting that scholars have determined that the Gomorrah Event has everything to do with inhospitality rather than the modern preoccupation with sexuality. One being the late lamented Boswell, among many others.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html

[Blossom]

Daniel, you sound angry, and I don't know why. The point that I said was "interesting" was that Dash's story made Lot into a pimp. Dash was having fun, obviously, but I would hate for anyone who has not read the story to take this as factual. The fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters pointed out the extreme nature of the sin of these men of the city. To give away their virginity was wrong, but Lot was trying to choose the lesser of two evils--as hospitatality was a huge concern. Lot wanted to be an honorable host and to protect his guests at any cost. Even the cost of offering his daughters to be raped.


Interesting that my version at hand says "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly". Too bad Genesis 13:13 doesn't spell what that wickedness and sin is. Of course, conservatives believe this to be the sin of male rape- the act of male intercourse- and the very essence of the word 'homosexual'. That's what the story is all about for them. (Interesting that modern conservatives lump male rape in with the word homosexuality which wasn't invented until the 1880's- as if male rape and homosexuality were the same thing.)

Daniel, I'm the only conservative on this board right now--and I have never said that male rape and homosexuality are the same thing. Never. As I mentioned a few posts back, I do not believe this passage should be used against homosexuals.




Interesting that the version in question here,13: 13, does not refer to the particpants of the story as much as it does to every man in the city. "But the men of Sodom...." (Hmmmm. Does that mean the Lesbians were the righteous ones? Oh. But I forget. Perhaps, like Queen Victoria, conservatives think there are no Lesbians.)



Women (of any sexual orientation) are not usually the ones who use rape as a way of establishing dominance. Thankfully, most men do not either, especially in our society which actively teaches that rape is wrong.

This passage isn't about homosexuality. In this context, hospitality was to be honored at all costs. As we look back, we can see the sin of asserting power in violent ways. Too many accounts of violence and rape remain today.




Interesting that it isn't Lot who yaks about the sin and wickness of the men of Sodom, but rather the 'narrator', whoever that is. [/url]

It is often the writer's/narrator's role to explain the meaning of what happens in a story. In this case, however, Lot does say,
"Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing." Of course, there is no need for the word "wicked" to come out of his mouth. Lot offers his own daughters to these men to satisfy them. It is clear that Lot believes that what these men are about to do is very, very wrong.

[Daniel]

Daniel, you sound angry, and I don't know why.

I would prefer that you not try this tone with me, it disregards your own use of words, which, to my mind is quite passive aggressive.

But I really don't want a fight here: I would rather post poetry which requires that the left and the right brain speak to one another. But that's another thread.

[Blossom]

I would prefer that you not try this tone with me, it disregards your own use of words, which, to my mind is quite passive aggressive.

But I really don't want a fight here: I would rather post poetry which requires that the left and the right brain speak to one another. But that's another thread.

Hi Daniel,

What seemed to happen was that my post regarding Dash's story brought up a number of feelings/thoughts which you shared. But I don't think what you posted was actually in response to what I said. That's o.k.--one person's post can easily lead anyone to any number of thoughts, even if it isn't based on that post. However, I sensed that you were taking out your frustration on me, as you did use one word from my post, "interesting", to begin each of your statements. I felt that your tone was something between sarcastic and harsh, which I hadn't expected coming from you.

If I say something that offends you, it's fine for you to say so. But I wasn't comfortable with the fact that you seemed angry with me, yet did not give a reason for being angry specifically with me.

If you respond to something I say, I would hope you would be upfront with me and be willing to explain what is going on--especially since it isn't always easy to read between the lines. :dove:

Blossom

[Daniel]

Hi Daniel,

What seemed to happen was that my post regarding Dash's story brought up a number of feelings/thoughts which you shared. But I don't think what you posted was actually in response to what I said. That's o.k.--one person's post can easily lead anyone to any number of thoughts, even if it isn't based on that post. However, I sensed that you were taking out your frustration on me, as you did use one word from my post, "interesting", to begin each of your statements. I felt that your tone was something between sarcastic and harsh, which I hadn't expected coming from you.

If I say something that offends you, it's fine for you to say so. But I wasn't comfortable with the fact that you seemed angry with me, yet did not give a reason for being angry specifically with me.

If you respond to something I say, I would hope you would be upfront with me and be willing to explain what is going on--especially since it isn't always easy to read between the lines. :dove:

Blossom

I am not equipped to answer you in the fashion which would be either helpful to you or to myself at this moment in time. And I sincerely wish that you will respect that.

See the thread about poems.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Dash, from my copy of The Complete Parallel Bible, you can add:

Revised English Bible: "have intercourse with" (1989)
New American Bible: "have intimacies with" (1970)
New Jerusalem Bible: "have intercourse with" (1985)

Also here are the annotations from The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV):

Genesis 19:1-38: The rescue of Lot and his family from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a prominent example in Israelite tradition of God's total judgment (Deut 29.23; Isa 1.9; Jer 49.18; Am 4.11). 1. Two angels, see 18.2-8n. 1-11: As in the case of 18.1-8, the main issue here is hospitality to secretly divine visitors. Here, however, the sanctity of hospitality is threatened by the men of the city who wish to rape (know) the guests (cf. Judg 19.22-30). Though disapproval of male homosexual rape is assumed here, the primary point of this text is how this threat by the townspeople violates the value of hospitality (contrast 18.1-16). Hospitality is valued so strongly in this context that this text positively portrays Lot's offer of his virgin daughters in place of his guests. Though the text presupposed that a father would have extreme difficult offering his daughters to such violence, Lot's virtue is demonstrated by his willingness to go to such a length -- and put his own body in danger (vv. 9-10) -- to avoid violation of his guests. As a result of his protection of his guests, he, like Noah, "finds favor" with God (v. 19; cf. 6.8) and he and his household are rescued out of destruction.

In my mind, the church needs to strongly condemn Lot's actions along with any impression that God actually favored Lot for offering up his daughters and, as a result, was rescued out of destruction. To me, this is right up there with Abraham offering to sacrifice Isaac. I don't believe God desired either. I can see God looking at both Lot and Abraham and saying, "What type of God do you think I am?!"

Stories like these are exactly why I have come to see the Bible in a new light. And while the writer clearly implies God's hand, I don't believe God purposely destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah any more than God destroyed New Orleans in 2005 or Sri Lanka in 2004. I just can't believe that anymore because of what I feel it would require me to believe about God (even if those cities are safely in the distant past).

I would also like to share a paragraph I found helpful from a Bible study in Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: a resource for congregations in dialogue on sexual orientation published by the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America.

A final observation on the story of Sodom. This story is certainly an unlikely starting point for a "biblical" understanding of sexual ethics. While the attempted homosexual rape by the men of Sodom is explicitly condemned, the offer by Lot to hand his two virgin daughters over to the violent and lecherous inhabitants of Sodom is related without a word of judgement. The story of Sodom may have real value for Christian theological reflection, but as information pertinent to our understanding of sexual ethics, its worth is highly suspect.

Rightly Dividing is a great resource that you can get here (http://www.bpfna.org/inventory_books/2).

However, Blossom is overly generous to "Conservative Christians" when she suggests that "Conservative Christians" don't still use the "sin of Sodom" as a synonym for homosexuality.

Even the very good NRSV translation injects the word "sodomites" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then again in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. I say injects, because I understand that the mysterious Greek word "arsenokoitai" has no lingual connection whatsoever to the Greek name for the city Sodom.

Not to mention the "Sodomy Laws" that criminalized sex between homosexuals in the United States until 2003 (!) when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawerence vs. Texas.

Blossom, I am very glad you teach the Sodom story to be about inhospitality, but I really hope you can appreciate how this bible story will hold a place of infamy in the struggle for GLBT equality (both in the church and in society).

I still hear some of this when "homosexual rape" is repeatedly listed as the wicked wicked sin of the Sodomites. It is as if the adjective, rather than merely being more descriptive, is intended to make the noun sound worse than it would by itself.

I attended Asbury Theological Seminary from '98-'02, which you likely know is very close to Lexington.

Well now! That is right down the road. Small world.

Conservative feminists and gay men. That is who I have known from Asbury. I'm not kidding, Blossom! When I attended a Southern Baptist church here in Lexington from '96-'99, there were three girls in our college class who went to Asbury (the college, not the seminary) and I could tell maybe they didn't quite fall in line with the whole women not being permitted to have authority over men thing.

I know four men from Asbury and they are all gay. One played the organ at a large Southern Baptist church here in Lexington. One was active in ex-gay ministries before finally realizing his sexual orientation never changed. He now goes to an Episcopal church here in Lexington and works for GLBT rights. My friend L worked for Asbury and is married to a woman. They have a 13 year old son, but L knows he is gay (he told his wife when he married her) and now is trying to do his best to honor those vows while living with integrity as a gay man. Finally, Matt got the nerve to come to his first Soulforce Lexington meeting this year. He is a preacher's kid (Southern Baptist) and is still very closeted.

[Dash]

Thanks for additions and the information Jamie! It is my desire to take a look at the hebrew word "qadesh" (a shrine prostitute) this week, if I have the time. It is often (or usually) mistranslated in many ways that are cruel to gay people.

I agree wholeheartedly about Lot--one of my least favorite characters in the Bible. I think it is no surprise that later his daughters got him drunk and basically raped him. Can you imagine what they must have felt as their father offered them up to be molested??!! It must have broken their minds.

Of course, women...wives, daughters...have been property, for the most part, since time immemorial.

You know, Jamie, my Shorty was intended to be a better man than Lot, since Elli and Nina were the saloon whores, not daughters. It was their choice of work and the kind of work one expects to see in a standard western story. (I just watched that old movie "Paint Your Wagon" Saturday night.) Doesn't make prostitution good, but mine was not a morality tale...just a western scene with legendary overtones and a point about word usage.

[Daniel]

Jamie- I bow to your scholarship and well-stated thoughts. Thank you for staying up late.

[tdogg]

Dash,

I truly look forward to your information on "qadesh" - it takes time and energy to do that type of research. Your efforts are greatly appreciate by me, and really do provide great insight into Biblical scripture. I hope you find the resources to keep this thread going, or at least continue in a different thread it it's more appropriate.

Thanks buddy! :cowboy:

[Jamie McDaniel]

You know, Jamie, my Shorty was intended to be a better man than Lot, since Elli and Nina were the saloon whores, not daughters. It was their choice of work and the kind of work one expects to see in a standard western story. (I just watched that old movie "Paint Your Wagon" Saturday night.) Doesn't make prostitution good, but mine was not a morality tale...just a western scene with legendary overtones and a point about word usage.
I had a hunch that fine western tale was the work of your creative mind, dear Dash, but I wasn't completely sure. Now I yada. ;)

[Joshuan]

When conservatives and fundamentalists control the book, the text, they control the vehicle and the weapon. They control the voice that gets spread. I am extremely excited that this wonderful topic is being spoken about here. I have devoured reading such brave studies before.

Here is the problem. As a Joshuan I have chosen to take a serious look at the Bible, its substance, its validity, its accuracy, its theme etc. I cannot help but notice that many versions of it are written from an airbrushed point of view that seeks to adapt to an ultra-conservative agenda. The problem is that even liberal christians have little choice but to read from these texts. Several of the versions have been showered with criticism for sloppy or even deliberate altering of scriptures..........and yet the changes dont get made.

I tried several years ago (with christians) to try to get this knowledge put together on one site. Open Source Bible. Not one person contributed and I finally closed it down. I have since learned that many of my non-christian friends know more about the Bible than Christians. We routinely discuss things that completely boggle the mind of the Ministers I speak to. Perhaps Soulforce, Sojourners and other groups could begin discussing ways to finally put out a downloadable version (at first) of the Bible after the text (whatever fragments and pieces you want to point at) are put together and looked at.

This world is ready for space travel and yet its Bible is more archaic than traveling by horse and buggy.

If there is power in the written word then that is where the battle will be won. As a Joshuan that is exactly what I am at work with right now. I am so disgusted with what I read, the contradictions, the cave-man style delivery that it is no wonder why the Christian faith is one with more mortar than brick.

I have lost count of the many times that wonderful seekers have realized how things are mistranslated or misused and yet their voices, their discovery makes about as much lasting impact as someone driving by my house with the radio cranked. In a second they are gone.

I applaud this thread, and yet I am disheartened at the same time. We must compile this somehow and let our light be shown so that those in darkness can see!

Jesus spoke those words to his disciples at a time when the temple was THE place that stood out on the horizon, yet he said it was his followers who were lights in the darkness. The light of the world.

Can we figure out a way to strengthen the light by compiling it together?

[Dash]

Joshuan,

Thank you for your input. There is a lot of substance in your post. I'm presently working on more for this thread, but I'm not prepared to post it yet.

I share your sense of discouragement. In some ways, the study that I've been doing has put me in a crisis of faith (like I haven't had one of those before...hahahah). I find myself laying aside once and for all an idea that was implanted by my Christian teachers: that scripture is somehow perfect and the process of translation has been guided by the Holy Spirit to produce an accurate representation of the intent of the Divine. More and more I see the fallibility of humans pressed upon the pages of scripture, like weeds that have grown in amongst the flowers and must be pulled again and again.

I believe the True Divine Word is only "written" on the heart, and we must make sure the "hard copy" is faithful to that and free of the natural human inclination toward bigotry and hate. Yet, there are so many translations out there. There is no way to "recall" them and present something new. Nonetheless, your idea seems to have strong merit. I just don't really know how to implement it.

In my online research recently, I have "googled" up some of my own posts here at the Soulforce forums. Let me tell you...that is frightening! I feel an increasing burden to be careful and accurate. Oy!! Realizing that (however unintentionally) my words may become a "source" of information makes me tremble. Yikes!!:eek:

[Blossom]

I believe the True Divine Word is only "written" on the heart, and we must make sure the "hard copy" is faithful to that and free of the natural human inclination toward bigotry and hate.

If you cannot trust God's inspiration in the hearts of the biblical writers, then you cannot trust your own heart, either, unless you think you are greater than they. Still, it is tricky to say that their intentions were impure, while yours remain pure. Who is to judge that you are more pure?

[Blossom]

I cannot help but notice that many versions of it are written from an airbrushed point of view that seeks to adapt to an ultra-conservative agenda. The problem is that even liberal christians have little choice but to read from these texts.


The NASB is the most wooden translation (doesn't take liberties in interpretation), yet this version is used by many "ultra-conservatives". The NRSV may seem liberal in that it uses gender inclusive language, but it is also used by conservatives, such as myself. I'm guessing that your problem isn't so much with the English translations as with questions stemming from books written by Jesus Seminar people. Here, it wouldn't be an issue of translating the text correctly, but for the Jesus Seminar, it would be going through to take out all the portions of Scripture they don't think belong.

[Daniel]

Who is to judge that you are more pure?

B- It seems that you are. :D

But then, one could say that I'm judging you judging Dash. Quite a loop, wouldn't you say?

How about we stop all the judging? :)

[Blossom]

B- It seems that you are. :D

But then, one could say that I'm judging you judging Dash. Quite a loop, wouldn't you say?

How about we stop all the judging? :)

Daniel,

I do not trust my own heart above God's revealed heart in Scripture. If I were to trust my own heart apart from God's grace, I would be ruled by sin--pride, anger, bitterness. Sure, I might be able to cover it up so no one would know who I really was underneath my facade. I would probably even try to do good, and manage to do some, but my intentions would always be ruled by that root of sin deep within. This is the reason that Christians believe that we need the grace that God offers through Jesus Christ. This is why Dash's point raises questions--but not only for this reason. It is also a problem of logic. How can he trust his own heart if he does not trust the heart of those who have written Scripture. Dash's words sound lovely, but aren't logical:

"More and more I see the fallibility of humans pressed upon the pages of scripture, like weeds that have grown in amongst the flowers and must be pulled again and again. I believe the True Divine Word is only "written" on the heart, and we must make sure the "hard copy" is faithful to that and free of the natural human inclination toward bigotry and hate."

Immediately after pointing out human fallibility as reason to disregard Scripture, he says that God's Word is only written on the heart and that we must make the written word match what is written on our hearts. Of course, to do that, we would have to use our own fallible human reasoning, which has its own "weeds that have grown in amongst the flowers and must be pulled and and again".

[Daniel]

Daniel,

I do not trust my own heart above God's revealed heart in Scripture. If I were to trust my own heart apart from God's grace, I would be ruled by sin--pride, anger, bitterness. Sure, I might be able to cover it up so no one would know who I really was underneath my facade. I would probably even try to do good, and manage to do some, but my intentions would always be ruled by that root of sin deep within. This is the reason that Christians believe that we need the grace that God offers through Jesus Christ. This is why Dash's point raises questions--but not only for this reason. It is also a problem of logic. How can he trust his own heart if he does not trust the heart of those who have written Scripture. Dash's words sound lovely, but aren't logical:

Really? I guess we'll all just have to conveniently forget about that lovely scripture that speaks to the Kingdom being Within. Methinks a heart is involved therein. Ah....but I forget. You distrust poetry and metaphor. Poetry must be damned under your great "I".

Esoteric thought, both eastern and western, goes beyond the "I". 'One' wonders, however, if you can understand such meaning. One also wonders what kind of God you worship.

"In choosing your god, you choose
your way of looking at the universe.
There are plenty of Gods.
Choose yours.

The god you worship
is the god you deserve." (Joseph Campbell)

[dewdrop_world]

Whew... getting a little heated!

I think we might have a couple of conceptions floating around of what it means to trust Scripture. Those who are more on the conservative end of the spectrum seem to suggest that Scripture's trustworthiness derives from its unique status as an error-free text. This leaves conservative religion vulnerable -- what if it can be shown that there is no such thing as an error-free text? I have come to feel that the nature of human language itself inevitably distorts the reality of the great questions of the purpose of life and the nature of God.

I've heard a couple of responses to this. "We believe in the infallibility of scripture as a matter of faith"... to which of course there is no possible rejoinder. But it seems a bit like a head-in-the-sand response, simply denying rather than refuting the substance of the criticism. The other is that the Bible may not be the complete reality, but it's sufficient to lead us to God's grace, and anything outside of this is irrelevant at best (or the work of Satan at worst). The response from sufficiency seems reasonable, but if scripture is sufficient-but-not-complete, how on the basis of mere sufficiency is it possible to exclude spiritual insight from every other source? For this is the other cornerstone of conservative theology -- not only is nothing outside of conservative religion needed for salvation, but EVERYTHING outside of conservative religion COUNTERACTS salvation. The latter point, I think, is not defensible.

If the Bible is a source of wisdom, then it may be fallible but lead us to grace. It is trustworthy but may be mistaken in some areas.

Or, another way to say it is, if I may trust only infallible resources on my spiritual path, then why should I trust a human minister, who by definition must be fallible?

James

[Daniel]

Whew... getting a little heated!


Yes. All heat and no light. ;)


For this is the other cornerstone of conservative theology -- not only is nothing outside of conservative religion needed for salvation, but EVERYTHING outside of conservative religion COUNTERACTS salvation. The latter point, I think, is not defensible.

Yes. It's a closed system. It's proponents see exactly that which they want to see and nothing more. All else is dust. But on this day of days, when all did indeed turn to dust, I take consolation, though it may seem strange to some, in the words of (more) Joseph Campbell.

Opportunites
to find deeper powers
within ourselves
come when life
seems most challenging.

Negativism
to the pain and ferocity of life
is negatism to life.

We are not there
until we can say
"yea" to it all.

To take a righteous attitude
towards anything is to denigrate it.

Awe is what moves us forward.

As you proceed through life,
following your own path,
birds will shit on you.
Don't bother to brush it off.

Getting a comedic view
of your situation
gives you spiritual distance.
Having a sense of humor saves you.

While I humbly recognize and own up to my own 'righteous attitude', I cannot stand by while Blossom's whine for literalism robs any dash of awe from the discussion and the odor of her own self-righteousness rises through these pages- all the while masked in a carefully constructed and condesending pastoral tone. It makes a mockery of Love. I find no 'yea' in her words.

Now. Please pardon me while I struggle to regain my sense of humor. And exit off stage, in the search for a bit of awe.

[Blossom]

Hi James,

Most Methodists, such as myself, don't actually see Scripture as "infallible". That would be the take of a fundamentalist. I understand that from a liberal perspective, this may seem strange to you. While I do not see the Bible as "infallible", I do see it as the trustworthy Word of God that contains all things necessary for salvation. Those who call the Bible infallible often think that God just grabbed the hand of the biblical author and made them write. But conservatives are capable of seeing the author's personality come through. We recognize that the authors, though inspired by God, were know all knowing, all seeing. In the West, we think that everything is either/or--either the Bible is infallible/written by the hand of God or it is worth nothing. Conservatives, however, can believe that Scripture is fully inspired and trustworthy in that which it is aimed at communicating--all things necessary for salvation. I don't use the Bible to explain science. I don't use is to learn how to program my VCR. The Bible focuses on God, humanity, and all that is involved with reconnecting us with God--"salvation history".

Thanks for trying to join in the conversation. I always appreciate your presence. I have not been angry in this conversation--just hoped I could present my position. I don't think that I'm really welcome here, which may be for the better. I need to focus on other things. It is disappointing, but I don't know why I was surprised. Blessings to you.

[Blossom]

"In choosing your god, you choose
your way of looking at the universe.
There are plenty of Gods.
Choose yours.

The god you worship
is the god you deserve." (Joseph Campbell)

Daniel,

You do not know me and you do not care to learn who I am, what I believe, or what I stand for. I will not bother to try to explain again.

All that truly needs to be said is this:

I hardly deserve the God I worship. Thankfully, God is a God of grace.

[Daniel]

Daniel,

You do not know me and you do not care to learn who I am, what I believe, or what I stand for. I will not bother to try to explain.

All that truly needs to be said is this:

I hardly deserve the God I worship. God is a God of grace.

Blossom- As I thought, poetry is lost on you. As is the poetry of GLBT lives. I have been following your level of discourse here and on the UMC forum. Whenever our lives and the consequences of the words and actions of conservatives are presented to you, you either change the subject or make much of how no one appreciates your views (If we would only understand them- we would all fall down- convicted of sin- and be lifted up into heterosexual heaven I suppose). I guess that is par for the course. No. You will not bother, will you?

Get to know you? I know you better than you know yourself. I was a Fundi once. The god you worship, you if take your conservatism seriously, means that you should be getting out the rocks and throwing them (ah...but you do..perhaps not literally...but with your 'views' nevertheless- dont you?). How you cognitively make an end run around all the OT condemnations (eating shell fish, wearing mixed cloth etc etc) and still reserve the right to condemn (that really is the sine qua non of your position) the lives of GLBT persons is rather something. Not only that, you want to be rewarded for being 'nice' while you condemn. Basta Cosi!

If you really do believe that the god you worship is one of grace, then you will have to give up your narrow views and stop standing in the way of the attainment of equal rights for gay persons, who's love for one another may be beyond your understanding and comprehension, but is no less deserving than that which you have for those you consider dear to you.

Addendum:

Now, after a bit of reflection, I see that, according to the tenants of nonviolence, I am in error in committing an act of violence, that being I have not adequately sought your friendship and understanding. I have, rather, sought to humiliate you. I sincerely regret this.

I am happy to objur my old ways, but wish to remind you that you seem all too happy to enter here for the sole purpose of doing harm to one I call my friend. Unfortunately, that is how this reader has received your thoughts. That doesn't sit well with me.

Come let us reason together. Not to prove how smart we are, provoke one another or regale each other with our knoweldge of what we think God thinks. But rather, demonstrate the Love of Christ to each other. Can you meet me there?

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Blossom --

Well, I am glad you're here, even if your perspective is challenging. I think you might be receiving some negative energy as a proxy for conservative Christians who are either afraid to visit here, or believe (contrary to Jesus' example) that they can only be polluted by associating with sinners.

I agree completely that an either/or position is not really sensible. It does seem fairly plain to see, though, that those who are somewhat aggressively promoting an unhealthy vision of conservative religion in fact hold exactly that position. On the UMC boards, we've heard it from Mel, Pastor Steve, Vernon, Ezekiel and a few others: if even one question about the veracity of scripture is tolerated for a moment, then the entire edifice of Christian morality will crumble to the ground. Translation: either the Bible is everything, or it is nothing.

It's hard to look at the bigger picture, but unfortunately, this goes beyond theology and into politics. For there are people who call themselves Christians (though I don't think they deserve the name) who want this paranoid vision to become the definition of Christianity -- who are so afraid that anyone might find their way to an ethical way of life without mindless adherence to their frankly simplistic, legalistic interpretation of the word that they really do want to impose the equivalent of Christian sharia on the United States. http://www.theocracywatch.org/ is not a neutral site, but it is a huge eye-opener.

Part of the strategy is to get mainline churches to become more and more conservative over time. Gay people are one of the pawns used to carry this out. Our lives are exploited to strike fear into ordinary churchgoers' hearts, to convince them that compassion toward sinners is moral weakness, and to make them dependent on the false security of a black and white view of the world and of God.

I can't tell you how much I respect your integrity. You seem to be above all that and I sense that your concern and your love is genuine. I am not so sure about some of your colleagues at umc.org, some of whom seem to have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. They are so sure that they can't possibly have made a mistake, and they somehow completely miss the fact that in the gospels, the only people Jesus got really angry at were the church officials of his time who acted just like they act today.

I do believe in the Bible as a powerful source of wisdom, but I cannot assent to a view of scripture that permits such -- I hesitate to use the word, but it rings true -- blasphemies. I don't think this is your view of Scripture, but I also think that genuine Christians such as yourself have a tougher time of it if the far right wing is allowed to define what it means to be conservative.

This got a little more heated than expected... but it is so obvious to me and many others that there is massive hubris, hypocrisy and denial among the loudest-mouthed conservative Christians, and I don't see many people articulating a clear and compelling ethic to expose this corruption of Christ's ministry for what it is. It is very frustrating, and painful to see the great potential of Christianity squandered by the very people who claim to be defending it.

James

[Zerbie]

Blossom,

Yes you are welcome here. Understand that everyone here is deeply emotionally invested in this conversation and that we will all have our reactions to the things you say, and as with any conversation, some reactions may not be "pretty". It is too easy to hurt one another in these talks. Too easy to offend and anger someone. We can all stand to take Daniel's advice as quoted from Campbell - life is so short and so precious - rather than spend our lives taking offense, let us speak to what is best in one another. After all, that's who we really are.

Please know this one thing Blossom: that those who do not believe exactly as you do - also have a spirituality as deep, committed, surrendered, passionate, and driving as yours.

[Blossom]

Zerbie,
I realize that this is a highly emotional topic. There are many here who refused to attack my character, even though this discussion was no doubt troubling for them as well. Yet members of this community (who seem to be very respected here) have attacked my character. Most recently, it has gone to attacking my intelligence and oddly enough, what was presumed to be my lack of appreciation for poetry. I had thought that by discussing religious issues as opposed to issues specifically related to homosexuality, that conversation would be more productive. However, this has not worked. I would have understood attacks on my thought process, but the attacks on my character strain my spirit too much, and as I have much work to do, I need to spend my energy on that which is in line with what God has called me to do now. I wish and pray the best for each member of this community. Thanks to many here for their thoughtful discussions.

Daniel,
Thank you for your private note, I will respond to it privately.

James,
Your words are deeply appreciated.

Blossom

[tdogg]

FWIW -

My view on this issue is, that scripture is not infallible and not to be taken literally by every person, across the board, in the same way. This may not sit well with everyone, but I do not and can not believe that all of those humans who wrote the original scriptures got every verse, every chapter, every word perfect according to how God wanted it written. Then, when you factor in the time period of MANY CENTURIES it has taken to arrive at hundreds of language interpretations, NUMEROUS different translations over the centuries (it hasn't stopped, they are still coming), ALL PERFORMED BY IMPERFECT HUMAN BEINGS - well, I just don't buy that the Bible is the end all, be all of God's will for everyone.

This is why I believe that the Bible is our gift to use ALONG WITH prayer AND meditation, so that each INDIVIDUAL gets guidance directly from God through the Holy Spirit - NOT A HUMAN BEING. We are taught by Jesus not to trust in men, but only in our Lord. I don't trust mankind from the beginning to the present, when it comes to translating God's will for me, to me. This is a personal issue, not something to be decided amongst a group of people. It is between me and the Lord - ONLY.

The forums here are frequented by a group of wonderful, bright, caring people who bring a variety of spiritual beliefs, spiritualism, mind-sets, opinions, life experiences with them to share with all of us. Each person is a valued human being, each person's character and experiences are no less valid than the other. I appreciate the information Dash has extensively researched for us - I will use it in whatever way suits me best. I think that's a good approach. If it's not useful, don't use it. I think everyone is welcome here, we can agree to disagree kindly, and appreciate the effort and thought that goes into posts even if we don't agree.

I personally hope that Dash is motivated to continue this research - for me, it has been and is extremely helpful and I don't have the luxury of being able to spend a lot of time on that research. I think it has been helpful for a lot of us, and if you are reading Dash, please don't stop!! Thanks!!

[Dash]

qadesh / qadesha - temple/shrine/cult prostitute

The Hebrew word "qadesh" is defined in the Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon as "a male temple prostitute." Essentially it means "holy one" as I understand it. (It's also a city, but that's not important to us) The feminine form is "qadesha." The word occurs some nine times in the original Hebrew and I have been looking at how it is translated. Unlike my previous study, I find that most translations have been faithful to the original Hebrew. Strangely, though, I've been more disheartened by those translations that are not. It seems that a particular choice is made when "qadesh" is rendered incorrectly. What's bothers me even more is when the word is not translated the same way in its different instances throughout the scripture. Why wouldn't it be? What motivates a translator to choose such a deceptive translation? I don't have any conclusions from this work yet, and it is not finished. I've really only looked closely at one verse, and as I said there are nine.

There are a couple of related words that I think should be mentioned here as well:

Keleb -- This word literally means "dog" and is used both as an expression of contempt and figuratively to mean a male cult prostitute.

Zanah -- This verb refers to the work of prostitution, as well as adultery. Figuratively, it can refer to spiritual unfaithfulness

* * *
Where "qadesh" occurs:

1 & 2
The word first appears in Genesis, 38:21, where Judah visits a prostitute on the roadside. Unknown to him, it is his widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar. "When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face." (Genesis 38:15..."prostitute" derived from the verb "zanah.") Judah had not kept his word to her to give her to another of his sons, so she tricks him into sleeping with her. She requires of him certain items to hold in pledge until he sends payment, but later when Judah sends a friend back with payment, Tamar has left.

"He asked the men who lived there, "Where is the shrine prostitute who was beside the road at Enaim?"

"There hasn't been any shrine prostitute here," they said. (Genesis 38:21...here the word "qadeshah" is translated "shrine prostitute.")

3 & 4
The next time the word appears is in Deuteronomy 23:17. It occurs in a list of laws: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. (The Hebrew uses "qadesha" and "qadesh" (feminine and masculine word forms for "shrine prostitute")

5, 6 & 7
Then it is used 3 times in the book of 1 Kings. In the reign of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, the people of Judah have fallen away from their true worship. "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites." (1 Kings 14:12) When Asa became king, however, he tried to restore Judah's religion. "He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made." (1 Kings 15:12) Asa's son Jehoshaphat continued this work. "He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa." (1 Kings 22:46)

8
The word "qadesh" occurs once in the story of Job:

"The godless in heart harbor resentment;
even when he fetters them, they do not cry for help.
They die in their youth,
among male prostitutes of the shrines." (Job 36:13-14)

9
Finally, it is seen in the prophecies of Hosea.

"I will not punish your daughters
when they turn to prostitution,
nor your daughters-in-law
when they commit adultery,
because the men themselves consort with harlots
and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes—
a people without understanding will come to ruin!" (Hosea 4:14)

In the above quote, "turn to prostitution" is the Hebrew verb "zanah." The verb recalls more colorful phrases like "go a whoring" and "play the harlot." It is a verb, not a noun, and implies the action of prostituting oneself. "Consort with harlots" is also "zanah." In this case the shrine prostitutes are "qadesha," or female. Translations of this verse vary widely, and I confess, the Hebrew lexicon I used didn't help me much. The NIV, which I have been using here, presents the meaning as, "I'm not going to punish your daughters for prostituting themselves, because the men are also prostituting themselves." I can't tell if that's an accurate rendering, but that's really a side issue.

* * *

I used the NIV in all of the quotes above, because that translation maintains the meaning of the word "qadesh" when it is used. When I began looking at how "qadesh" was translated, I was pretty distressed. The King James Version generally translates "qadesh" as "Sodomite" while "qadesha" is translated as "harlot." How is the difference justified? In Job 36, it oddly translates it as "unclean." But nowhere does it make clear that these are shrine prostitutes.

Below is my comparison of Deuteronomy 23:17. It seems that the term "Sodomite" appeared before the King James Version, and is carried mostly through English and Spanish texts. Without some truly scholarly work (which mine is not) I make no guess as to where or when the term "sodomite" first was used. I only can say that I find it first in the Spanish. It makes me think of "lineages" of translations. Even today, the King James "family" will not let go of "sodomite" though it is clearly incorrect. It switched to "perverted one" in the 80s, but went back to "sodomite" for the most recent versions.

Like I said this isn't finished, and I haven't even bee able to formulate a coherent set of conclusions or thoughts about this. Some of you may have thoughts as well as suggestions about where I might take this. Just let me know.

___________________________________

Qadesh translated as "shrine prostitute"

Greek, Septuagint (3rd - 1st century B.C.E.): πορνη & πορνευων (porne & porneuon = prostitute), and τελεσφορος & τελισκομενος (telesphoros & teliskomenos = initiate...so far as I can tell)

[Note: The Septuagint doubles the verse. First it states it using "prostitute," then it restates it using an obscure term that seems to indicate temple mysteries. Some centuries after the Septuagint translation, "telesphoros" became the name of a god of healing and fulfillment."]

Latin Vulgate: (5th century) meretrix (female prostitute) scortator (male prostitute)

English:
Wycliff Bible: (1395) hoore, letchour
Tyndale Bible: (1534) whore, whorekeper
Miles Coverdale Bible: (1535) whore, whorekeper
The Geneva Bible: (1587) whore, whore keeper
The Bishop's Bible: (1568) whore, whore keeper
Douay-Rheims Bible: (1764 revision) whore, whoremonger
Young's Literal Translation: (1898) whore, whoremonger
Revised Standard: cult prostitute , cult prostitute
New American Standard: (1960-1995) cult prostitute, cult prostitute
New Life: (1969) sell the use of her body in worship to a strange god, sell the use of his body for a strange god
New International Version: (1973-1984) shrine prostitute (for both)
New Revised Standard (1989) temple prostitute
New Century Version (1991) temple prostitute
The Message: (1993-2002) sacred prostitute
Contemporary English: (1995) temple prostitute
GOD'S WORD Translation (1995) temple prostitute
New Living Translation: (1996) temple prostitute
New International Reader's Version: (1996-1998) temple prostitute
The Complete Jewish Bible (1998) ritual prostitution, ritual homosexual prostitution
Holman Christian Standard Bible: (1999-2003) cult prostitute
English Standard: (2001) cult prostitute
Today's New International Version: (2001-2005) shrine prostitute
The NET Bible: (1996-2005) sacred prostitute, sacred male prostitute
Good News: temple prostitute
New Amplified Standard Bible: cult prostitute, cult prostitute.


French:
Bible Martin: (1744) prostituée (prostitute) prostitué à paillardise (lewd prostitute)
Darby: (1872) vouée à la prostitution, voué à la prostitution (dedicated to prostitution)
Louis Segond: (1910) prostituée, prostitué (prostitute)
La Bible Catholique Crampon: (1923) prostituée, prostitué (prostitute)
La Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible: courtisane sacrée (sacred courtesan) prostitué sacré (sacred prostitute)
Bible en Français Courant: (1997) prostitution sacrée (sacred prostitution)
La Bible du Semeur: (1999) prostituées sacrées (sacred prostitutes), prostitution sacrée (sacred prostitution)
Bible de Jerusalem: (2003) prostitute(e) sacré(e) (sacred prostitute)
Bible des Témoins de Jéhovah (Jehovah's Witnesses): prostitute(e) sacré(e) (sacred prostitute)

German:
Elberfelder: (1871-1985) Geweihte, Geweihten (sanctified one)
Luther Bibel: (1545) Hure, Hurer (male & female prostitute)
Schlachter: (1951) Hure, Hurer (male & female prostitute)
Einheitsübersetzung: (1960-1980) sakrale Prostitution (sacred prostitution)
Lutherbibel (revised): (1984) Tempeldirne (temple harlot),Tempelhurer (temple prostitute)
Gute Nachricht Bibel: (2000) dem Dienst eines fremden Gottes weihen (consecrated in the service of strange gods)

Spanish:
Nueva Versión Internacional: (1999) dedicará a la prostitución ritual (dedicated to ritual prostitution)

Italian:
La nuova Diodati: (1991) prostituzione sacra (sacred prostitute)
Luzzi/Riveduta: meretrice (prostitute), prostituisca (prostitute)
C.E.I/Gerusalemme: (1986) dedito alla prostituzione sacra (dedicated to sacred prostitution)

Others:
Portuguese, by João Ferreira: (1628-1691) prostitua no serviço do templo (prostitute in the service of the temple)
Portuguese, O livro: (2000) prostitutas
Russian, Synodal Version: (1876) блудницы, блудника (male & female prostitute)
Bulgarian: (1940) блудница (whore)
Indonesian Bahasa: pelacur di kuil-kuil pemujaan (prostitutes in shrine worship)
* Dutch (Hollands LEI) gewijde (holy one) gewijde (holy one)
*Norwegian Bible (Bibelselskapets utgave 1930) tempelskjøge (temple harlot) tempelboler(?)
*Swedish: tempeltärna tempelbolare (not really sure)

Qadesh translated as "sodomite"

English
King James Version: (1611) whore, sodomite
Webster Bible Translation: (1833) harlot, sodomite
Darby Translation: (1890) prostitute , Sodomite
American Standard: (1901) prostitute, sodomite
Jewish Publication Society Old Testament: (1917) harlot, sodomite
Bible in Basic English: (1949) "No daughter of Israel is to let herself be used as a loose woman for a strange god, and no son of Israel is to give himself to a man."
Amplified Bible: (1954-1987) cult prostitute, cult prostitute (a sodomite)
New King James Version: (1982) ritual harlot, perverted one
21st Century King James Version: (1994) whore, sodomite
Third Millenium Bible (New Authorized Version) (1998) whore, sodomite
World English Bible: (still in draft version) prostitute, sodomite
Hebrew Names (in process): prostitute, sodomite

Spanish
Reina-Valera Antigua: (1569 & 1602) ramera (harlot), sodomítico (sodomite)
Reina-Valera 1960: (1960) ramera (harlot), sodomita (sodomite)
La Sagrada Biblia: (1978) ramera (harlot), sodomítico (sodomite)
La Biblia de las Américas: (1986-1997) ramera (harlot) sodomita (sodomite)
Reina-Valera 1995: (1995) ramera (harlot) sodomita (sodomite)
Provides the following commentary:

Alusión a una forma de prostitución difundida entre los pueblos del antiguo Oriente, relacionada con los ritos de la fertilidad. Mediante la unión sexual practicada en los templos se trataba de asegurar la fertilidad de los campos y del ganado. Cf. Lv 19.29; 1 R 14.24; 15.12; 22.46.

reference to a form of prostitution found in the cities of the ancient East, related to fertility rites. By mean of sexual union practiced in the temples one was to assure the fertility of fields and cattle....

Nueva Versión Internacional: (1999) dedicará a la prostitución ritual (dedicated to ritual prostitution)

Others
*Indonesian Baru: pelacur bakti (prostitute devotee), semburit bakti. (buggery? devotee)
*Maori Bible: waiho hei kairau (given to prostitution), whakatangata o Horoma (loose morals?)
*Greek, Moderne: πόρνη (prostitute), κιναιδος (homosexual)
*Afrikaans: (1953) hoer (whore) skandseun (shameful boy?)
* Dutch Statenvertaling, (1750): hoer (whore) schandjongen (shameful boy?)

[BruceChris]

Por nog ra phy, n. writing about harlots or prostitutes. Dash, I guess this makes you a pornographer. (Scholarly, and for a good cause, but a pornographer none the less!) :eek: :lol: :eek: :lol: :disagree: :lol: :agree: :rofl:

But you do make your point.

P&L, Bruce Chris

[Dash]

Por nog ra phy, n. writing about harlots or prostitutes. Dash, I guess this makes you a pornographer. (Scholarly, and for a good cause, but a pornographer none the less!) :eek: :lol: :eek: :lol: :disagree: :lol: :agree: :rofl:

But you do make your point.

P&L, Bruce Chris

Just for you BruceChris...

Here's a random website that I ran across as I was working on this stuff.

The Words of the Day
The Unlikely Evolution of Common English
By: Dr. Steven M. Cerutti PhD.
http://www.rampant-books.com/book_2005_2_words_c14.htm

There are excerpts from this guy's book...a chapter called, "Nine Words (And A Fish) You Thought You Knew." He talks about the etymology of "pornography" and "fornication" as well as some other stuff. I didn't actually read all of it, cuz you can only hold so much information in these cupboards as Sherlock Holmes would say, but those two words were very interesting. I'll never look at the colosseum the same way again.