What does the bible say about God destroying Soddam and Gomora.

    Sorry about the spelling ? Did God destroy this town because of their sexual tendencies or is this a man made story to get at any particular sexual group. Sorry if I sound a bit thick on this but I have always wanted to know the truth.

    0  Views: 3771 Answers: 15 Posted: 7 years ago
    Tags: religion

    15 Answers

    Here is what the bible actually says about Sodom..."But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."..."And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;"

    The men of Sodom and Gomorrah came to Lot's house demanding that he turn over the men "that we may know them."

    Does this mean that they wanted to rape these men since we know that the scripture calls sexual intamacy as "knowing" one another?

    What we do know is that these men are very wicked, so when they say "that we may know them" I doubt that they just wanted to have a few beers and a laugh.

    Lot seemed to know what they were after when they said "that we may know them" for Lot offered them his daughters and said to the men "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes:" When Lot says that his daughters have "not known man" do you think he meant that they never ever met a man? Lot had other daughters that were married to men so these daughters whom he says have "not known man" are daughters who have never had sex with a man.

    Now was Lot evil in even offering his daughters to a mob of men to be raped? That is another topic of debate. But it is obvious from the text that Lot understood what the men wanted with the other men, sex, and offered them his virgin daughters to them hoping a virgin would satisfy their wicked needs. But these men were beyond virgins, they were perverted beyond the natural sexual sins of man with woman and would not be satisfied with women any longer, not even virgin women.

    It is not that the sexual sins of Sodom and Gormorrah are worse than any other sins and therefore deserved a special punishment. All sin deserves death. These men were wicked, they had abandoned any right ways of God, they were not just sinning as consenting homosexuals, they were taking their sins to another level, sex by force, rape and violating another human being's rights.

    So yes, these men of Sodom were looking to rape these men of God, proper exegsis of the passage makes this quite clear.

    Some argue that Lot would not offer women to homsexual men. Lot seen men looking for sex and thought that maybe a virgin (someone new to sex) would satisfy them. Whether Lot was wrong even for suggesting his daughters is another debate like I said.


    Ok I have marked you up on that! A well written account.

    Hi. It is a true story. Even Jesus quotet about Sodoma and Gommora in Matt: 10:15. Before he was born a human child, he was an angel in heawen, the next great after God. He was helping creating every thing, and he was watching vhen God destroyd Sodoma and Gomorra because of their sexual tendencies as you say. I feel it gives give us time to think about the way we people act today. If god could save his faitfull beleivers then, would he not be able to do it again. It will be nice when the meak ones will enherrit the earth.

    I have a Bible software program that has over 570 references to my search on the topic "Sodom." If someone wants to see how accurate the Bible is, even view it in the original Hebrew text, I can list it on a separate question if you really want to see all of it.

    When some say,"The bible has changed, it isn't accurate, or every religion has their own version."
    You will be able to see for yourselves how it all means the same thing. Sometimes, when you translate from one language to the next, i.e.; Greek to English etc., there are more than one English word for the one Greek word. It doesn't change to meaning of the story.

    I think what people say about opinions is true, everyone has one, they are biased, and it depends on your perspective or world view, what your answer will be. Will your mind be changed by an opposite opinion or when presented with historical fact?

    Probably not.

    Homosexual or bi-sexual my point remains, if all the men of the city went to rape the strangers and having turned down Lot's offer of his daughters because they wanted male to male sex, why did he not offer up himself or his son in laws in place of the strangers? He never did, why? If it was his duty to protect the strangers and if his duty was so strong within him that he would offer his daughters, why not his son in laws or himself?

    This lower part is not written by me but is an expert from Hope Remains.

    "There are those who claim that when the crowd said "let us know them," they meant "have sex." There are even translations of the Bible that say "let us have sex with them," or "let us know them carnally." Let us state categorically, that the Hebrew text will NOT support such "translations."

    Some say that Hebrew has more than one verb for "know" and that the one used here means "have sex." Let's set the record straight on this. The root of the Hebrew verb for "know" is ??? yada. A form of yada is used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context. (Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.) To try to make this word mean sex everywhere will get us in a lot of trouble, because the scripture tells us that God knew David, and uses a form of this word. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to try to attach a sexual meaning to that. When the crowd outside Lot's house said they wanted to know the visitors, they meant exactly that: To know who they were. "

    Hebrew translation research by Christians of Hope Remains. Above reference written by Christians of Hope Remains.

    Last point if you're still stuck on the idea they wanted to rape the strangers, rape is NOT homosexuality. Just like rape is NOT heterosexuality.

    papa peg

    What about men in prison.They rape other men and then they call them fag's.And I don't think that's right.When a couple of men do another man.That makes them the fag's.

    What's up Doc? So.......let me get this straight, from the beginning of this account in the bible, throughout thousands or years of history, after all the experts and scholars that dedicated their lives to the study of the scriptures, the very people that named the act of sodomy after the city,,,,,(they are all wrong?) You're saying that, "oops".......(we decided) even though we are not biblical scholars, that our interpretation is now, suddenly, the new proper interpretation??????

    I guess I have to respect your opinion but, what a story. Even if you had someone with the credentials, a degree in Theology, to stamp their approval on this, it wouldn't even begin to approach the realm of believable. New theories aren't even accepted in the scientific community at the drop at a hat.

    I'm sure if you stick to your story eventually, it will become more believable. Who knows, it may even be widely accepted by more that one small group of people, someday. But,this is just my opinion of your opinion.


    And I respect your opinion. Well stated. I formed my opinion after careful study and after years of dealing with people from many walks of life and from my own walk with God. Thank you for your candid answer. And thank you for the respectful approach invoked in your reply. It speaks generously to your character, indicating you have the capacity for logical and intelligent debate. Again, thank you.

    Maybe some of the men of the city were bisexual, in ancient times the sin of rape was considered to be a lessor sin, than the sin of sodomy, thus the term sodomy. That's why Lot offered his virgin daughters. In that time, the custom was that you were responsible for the people or guests under your roof.



    So now it was bi-sexuals he was mad at. Gotcha. If that's the case, it's 50/50. Straights and gays were at fault.



    Was just following your thought. Sorry you took it as sarcastic. Maybe it was the "gotcha" (It was a little Sarah Palin, wasn't it?)..was saving myself some typing...I understand your thoughts. Better?



    It's not a popularity contest tami and I can well pick out who doesn't like me here and quite frankly, I don't give a dang. Yes, I debate. I put thought and research into what I say. I will not stand by and watch others post non truths about my life. You will simply have to excuse me for that.



    Yes tami, I am a homosexual. When people slam homosexuality or call it a sin or condemn people to hell because of it or give false ideas of it, I will defend it. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is a life, a way of being. Heterosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is a life, a way of being. I was born homosexual. I did not nor have I ever made a conscious choice to become a homosexual. I simply always have been.



    What I have chosen to do is to live who I am honestly and not allow others ideas and fears of hell force me to be something I'm not. If that's too much for you, don't read. If my research is not accurate, you have a right to debate me. Your comment to rushie: "it's not about me not liking her,how can one dislike a complete stranger." Does question this other thought of yours: "she's very debatable and not well liked on this site." So let me ask you, how can anyone dislike a complete stranger?



    LOL, do you feel better tami? Did knocking my karma down 140 points make you feel vindicated? Yes? Good. Happy to help : ) No, this is not whining, I really am laughing. I find it so humorous that when people can't hurt you with words, they attack cyber points like that will hurt you instead. It's just so silly.


    Leeroy you will have to excuse her, she's very debatable and not well liked on this site.


    Your life?? We are complete strangers,thank god.All of your research is not always accurate,what you do or what type of lifestyle you have chosen is your own business.I come on here to post my opinions, but you at times don't know when to let it go.I don't think anyone is on here to specifically hurt you.And to rushie54, it's not about me not liking her,how can one dislike a complete stranger.



    Headless Man

    <a href="/users/1635/leeroy/">@leeroy</a> a sin is a sin lying the same as murder in GOD's eyes. People may have different levels but GOD only one.


    I quite like Colleens answers. You don't have to like her. She is welcome to give pos or neh comments as far as I'm conserned


    The lady is entitled to her opinion even if she gets it wrong but It this case I do not think she got it wrong. Will you good people please stop sniping? I agree the term fag is abusive.


    I can post sarcastic comments about your comments too but, I choose to take a more positive path. You can do the same when someone has a different opinion than you.


    In the old testament and new there are different degrees of sin, but yes sin is sin and all sins are forgivable if you truly mean it when you repent. And that's between you and God, not for anyone to judge.



    The question has been thoroughly answered. You have to actually read the post.

    Let's examine this quote from the Hope Remains "scholar"....

    "There are those who claim that when the crowd said "let us know them," they meant "have sex." There are even translations of the Bible that say "let us have sex with them," or "let us know them carnally."

    So far the Hope Remains scholar recognizes the works of hundreds of Hebrew scholars who agreed that this phrase "that we may know them" means sex. In fact, take note that there is not one translation out of hundreds of translations where the Hebrew scholars did not agree that this phrase means sex.

    Continuing with Hope Remains....

    "Let us state categorically, that the Hebrew text will NOT support such "translations."

    Statements, no matter how much passion is put into them, must be supported by the evidence. Let's see if proper biblical exegesis of the passage supports his passionate statement.

    Continuing with Hope Remains....

    "Some say that Hebrew has more than one verb for "know" and that the one used here means "have sex."

    Take note, not some but all scholars say this because it is proper bible exegesis, context will be the deciding factor.

    Continuing quote from HR......

    "Let's set the record straight on this. The root of the Hebrew verb for "know" is ??? yada. A form of yada is used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context."

    Take note, HR is correct, sexual meaning is clear by the context.

    Continuing with HR quote....

    "(Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.) To try to make this word mean sex everywhere will get us in a lot of trouble, because the scripture tells us that God knew David, and uses a form of this word. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to try to attach a sexual meaning to that."

    Take note, HR is correct, i don't think anyone would be foolish enough to try to attach a sexual meaning to that. Nor should they be foolish enough to not if the context demands it.

    Continuing with HR....

    "When the crowd outside Lot's house said they wanted to know the visitors, they meant exactly that: To know who they were."

    What????????? This is the final conclusion by HR after demanding that context rule???

    HR went to graet lengths to preach context, context, context and then throws the context out the window and declares that these men just wanted to know who the new guys were. These men decided that they needed to know who these guys were so bad that they had to force their way into Lot's house just to find out!

    Context; 1) The men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked 2) The men of Sodom wanted to "know" these new men 3) Lot offered them virgins showing clearly context declares "know" means "sex" 4) The men refused and tried to take them by force showing they had wicked intentions 5) Every single translation, and there are hundreds with hundreds of Hebrew scholars doing the translating, declare this passage is speaking of sex. Not one bible declares anything different.

    Conclusion; HR's passionate plea of "categorically will NOT support such translations" (actually, no translations then) is just that, passion without contexual support. The translations we have from hundreds of Hebrew scholars are correct? The CONTEXT defeats HR's passionate rhetoric.

    Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality and no other topic for that matter.

    I have found through my personal research that gay, lesbian, bisexual Christians take the Bible seriously, too.

    Personally, I've spent more than 20 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching at some points, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees from two conservative biblical seminary's to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." Along with secular education in Cognitive Studies/Psychology. I learned a fair amount of Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the life and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better understand the context in which they were writing which is critically important, and to better apply it to my own time.

    It is very important as well to understand to whom the inspired writers were addressing. Yes, to get full knowledge or better yet accurate knowledge of any particular text in the Bible one must as God says; “rightly divide the Word of Truth”. Therefore do not expect to understand or be able to render a correct interpretation by hopping and skipping through the Bible as most Christians, and non-Christians alike do.

    My findings may not suit your liking or go along with what you are accustom to hearing or believing, and may upset you. I however make no apologies ever for revealing truth in God's word no matter who it may offend. I do not teach according to popular consensus, nor do I teach in a fashion to earn the respect of the masses. God's Word is not going to be taken well sometimes. Even I do not like some of my findings as it may go against some of my previous positions, but if I want to serve God, and render truth I must yield to his truth.

    Research Results/Findings (Only an excerpt of my original)Go to this link on another answer for full study rendering or use the attached link if it allows it: link text

    I'm convinced the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians -- as well as straight Christians. But it's not the message of condemnation we so often hear. I can only humbly render to you the results of my research and ask that you honestly check out my facts before you close your mind. You are better off with the truth of the Word than you are with popular opinion. In God's eyes popular opinion carries no weight, and will be no defense for error. I am not asking that we promote alternative lifestyles.

    What I am asking is that you consider the facts before you pass judgment in error based on the popular opinion of today and more often than not repeated from the pulpits. There is much error on many topics coming from today's pulpits. God said there would be.

    ”The Mind is like a parachute. It only works when open, and in this case open to God's Word”

    I'm not expecting you to take my word for it either. I ask only that you'd consider what my research has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God's gay and lesbian children. Then decide for yourself. I know a few preachers will certainly read this, and I ask that you properly research the written findings I have supplied before you attempt to respond. Please keep the UN-supported biased opinions to yourself as they carry no weight unless backed up with scripture which is properly utilized in it's correct context. Then I am more than happy to engage in a professional debate of the issue or any other issue. GENESIS 19:1-14
    THE STORY OF SODOM Now let's consider the second biblical text used by some people to condemn God's gay children. You remember the ancient story of Sodom. First, what does the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 say about God?

    Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about?

    Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham did not mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom.

    Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

    Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God's heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate.

    I admit, there are a lot of homosexual folks who are Sodomites (and a lot of heterosexual folks as well). Sodomites are rich and don't share what they have with the poor. Sodomites have plenty and want more while millions are hungry, homeless, and sick. Sodomites rush to build bigger homes, buy bigger cars, and own more property -- putting their trust in safer stock portfolios and more secure retirement accounts.

    Whatever teaching about sexuality you might get out of this passage, be sure to hear this central, primary truth about God as well. God has called us to justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with our Creator. Sodom was destroyed because its people didn't take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast. Now I am sure your list of sodomites just increased as we probably all know many.

    But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing.

    It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And it is still happening.


    In August 1997, Abner Louima, a young black immigrant from Haiti, was assaulted by several police officers after he was arrested in Brooklyn. Officer Charles Schwarz held Louima down in a restroom at the precinct, while Officer Justin Volpe rammed a broken stick into Louima's rectum. These two men and the three other officers involved in this incident and its cover-up were not gay. This was not a homosexual act. It was about power.

    The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

    Colleen I noticed that you were here 3 minutes ago, but I don't see a new comment? Can't we agree to disagree? Oh, sorry, you must have been editing.? O.k. hope we can all just get along.



    I see you found it :)

    That might be your perspective of my logic but, (that's your perspective not mine.) My definition of homosexual: the act or desire to have sex with someone of the same sex. Reference Websters new world Dictionary. Rape is defined as the act of taking sex forcefully or violently, against the will of the the victim.

    I simply combined the two definitions. That was my perspective, I understand that you have a different one but, you know what they say about assuming? It makes asses out of people.
    You don't have to put words into other peoples mouths to have a discussion and argue to the point, where it becomes pointless.

    I don't think that I have ever tried to put words into your mouth, I just say and will say again,"I respect your opinion." I won't beat a dead horse anymore, and I won't leave sarcastic comments if I don't agree with you. I like you Colleen. Can we agree to disagree?

    Same answer, who would read the story and think that the men were fighting to get to know them? Anyone who studies the bible know what they mean when they say,
    and he laid with her or he knew her. It meant sex. You have only to look at the content of the story to figure it out, unless you want to have your own translation.

    Lots sons weren't there to offer up to the crowd. Rape was considered a lesser sin than sodomy. They, (Lot's sons,)had their own homes and wives.

    Rape between the same sex is still Homosexual i.e., same sex. Even though it is still rape. Uncommon sense says you can read a story and basically understand the authors intent.

    Anytime you translate one language to another there will be no word, one word, or more than one word, for any one word.

    I have a biased Biblical studies view, I also rely on what the people who have studied the Bible for centuries, experts on the subject, believe the story to be. I also have common sense. This is just my opinion though.

    Wonder if God was 'aving a pop at the Japs the other day?

    Lesson of Infamous Cities

    THEY were thriving cities, each with its own king. Suddenly, in one day, they were destroyed by fire and never rebuilt. This happened about 3,900 years ago.
    Nevertheless, one of these infamous twin cities had a name that to this day is preserved in a number of languages by a word that bespeaks depravity—Sodom. The other city was Gomorrah.

    One evening, two strangers entered Sodom. The prosperous men of the city saw them, but no native extended a welcome. Finally, Lot, a God-fearing man who had settled in the area, arrived. Catching sight of them, he insisted on their staying in his home for the night. Before Lot and his visitors were ready to retire, the house was surrounded by a mob. The depraved people of Sodom, from boy to old man, demanded that the visitors be turned over to them. Why? They wanted to rape them.

    Yes, Sodom was a place where any visitor might be sexually assaulted. The inhabitants had no regard for the rights of others and were bent on satisfying their selfish desires and passions. Surrounding peoples were greatly distressed about the serious violations of human decency. This resulted in a general outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible states that the complaint was not overlooked by “the Judge of all the earth,” Jehovah God.—Gen. 18:20, 21, 25.

    The presence of the two strangers in Sodom was not a mere coincidence. According to the Bible record, they were angels who had been sent there to warn Lot and his family to get out of the city before its destruction. Lot and his two daughters did escape, but his wife perished because of failing to heed angelic direction for a successful flight.—Gen. 19:1-26.
    The Biblical account fits the available archaeological testimony. During the period in which the Scriptures place the residence of Lot in Sodom, the area was fertile, with “freshwater flowing into the Dead Sea in sufficient amounts to sustain agriculture.” (Encyclop?dia Britannica) The Bible says: “All of it was a well-watered region before Jehovah brought Sodom and Gomorrah to ruin.”—Gen. 13:10.
    Moreover, the Ammonites and Moabites, the descendants of Lot’s daughters, settled territory near the Dead Sea, and this, too, is confirmed by archaeological evidence. Hence, we are not dealing with a myth but with an event of history.

    are you having a laugh rushie54 another bloody god question nooooooooooooo!

    Top contributors in Uncategorized category

    Answers: 18373 / Questions: 154
    Karma: 1099K
    Answers: 47501 / Questions: 115
    Karma: 953K
    country bumpkin
    Answers: 11159 / Questions: 156
    Karma: 817K
    Answers: 10006 / Questions: 1137
    Karma: 749K
    > Top contributors chart

    Unanswered Questions

    Answers: 0 Views: 7 Rating: 0
    were to buy lasko beer in mentor ohio
    Answers: 0 Views: 989 Rating: 0
    > More questions...