Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
NORMAN – I don’t know what you did here but it would not let me quote. I had to put it in word, answer the questions, and post at the bottom. Hopefully it works.
ING - YHVH uses the same word translated here as "KNOW THEM/SEX" - when he says he has heard the groaning of the people concerning Sodom and Gomorrah - and is going down to - "same word" them.
Obviously he was not going down to have gay sex with them. And that lets us know the word here is meant to be one of it's other meanings. In this case - to ascertain, judge, and punish (if needed.)
The people, learning that the angels are there to "ascertain and punish," rush the house and call for the angels to be sent out, so they can do what the angels came to do to them - judge and punish, - FIRST!
NORMAN - Ingledsva, what are you quoting from?
STRANGE FLESH - in the Bible, is almost always found to be, - led astray by "foreign women" (and thus their Gods,) or it is used for Sacred Prostitutes.
ING – What am I quoting from? I’m not quoting.
NORMAN - In regards to having sex with angels. The English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315).
Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.
It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term: The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion
of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added). So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.
ING – All the above to say nothing! I obviously did NOT say anyone had sex with angels!
I said they mistranslated the word to mean sex – WHEN IT DOES NOT.
NORMAN - Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”
ING – It doesn't matter what Jude 1:7 says. It is NOT the verse we are discussing. It is a later Christian text - misunderstanding the Jewish Tanakh text.
NORMAN - Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).
by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).
ING – And this is just bull, - Jude 7 is someone's way-way-way later - Christian times - misunderstanding of what the Tanakh verse actually said.
NORMAN - In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).
Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”?
ING – Why are you hung up on angel sex? There was NO angel sex!
And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!
ING – And again – no angel sex, – and NO homosexual sex either.
The words have specific meanings “YADA” which keeps getting mistranslated here into “know,” in the sex sense, – has NOTHING to do with sex in this verse. As I said YHVH uses the same word – and he wasn’t going down for gay sex! HE WAS GOING DOWN TO ASCERTAIN/JUDGE and PUNISH! That is the same use of the word in the other sentence.
Also - again - Jude 1:7 is what NT readers THOUGHT (wrongly, as usual) that the Torah text meant. They were wrong.
PS. I don't know what you did to your reply - but it would not let me reply in a normal way.
Also - the way you put the text in - you did not put my name on my quotes, - and you DID put my name at the beginning of some of YOUR quotes to me, - thus making this very confusing to answer.
Part 2 to follow - way to long - for no reason - I might add.
*
ING - YHVH uses the same word translated here as "KNOW THEM/SEX" - when he says he has heard the groaning of the people concerning Sodom and Gomorrah - and is going down to - "same word" them.
Obviously he was not going down to have gay sex with them. And that lets us know the word here is meant to be one of it's other meanings. In this case - to ascertain, judge, and punish (if needed.)
The people, learning that the angels are there to "ascertain and punish," rush the house and call for the angels to be sent out, so they can do what the angels came to do to them - judge and punish, - FIRST!
NORMAN - Ingledsva, what are you quoting from?
STRANGE FLESH - in the Bible, is almost always found to be, - led astray by "foreign women" (and thus their Gods,) or it is used for Sacred Prostitutes.
ING – What am I quoting from? I’m not quoting.
NORMAN - In regards to having sex with angels. The English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315).
Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.
It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term: The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion
of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added). So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.
ING – All the above to say nothing! I obviously did NOT say anyone had sex with angels!
I said they mistranslated the word to mean sex – WHEN IT DOES NOT.
NORMAN - Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”
ING – It doesn't matter what Jude 1:7 says. It is NOT the verse we are discussing. It is a later Christian text - misunderstanding the Jewish Tanakh text.
NORMAN - Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).
by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).
ING – And this is just bull, - Jude 7 is someone's way-way-way later - Christian times - misunderstanding of what the Tanakh verse actually said.
NORMAN - In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).
Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”?
ING – Why are you hung up on angel sex? There was NO angel sex!
And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!
ING – And again – no angel sex, – and NO homosexual sex either.
The words have specific meanings “YADA” which keeps getting mistranslated here into “know,” in the sex sense, – has NOTHING to do with sex in this verse. As I said YHVH uses the same word – and he wasn’t going down for gay sex! HE WAS GOING DOWN TO ASCERTAIN/JUDGE and PUNISH! That is the same use of the word in the other sentence.
Also - again - Jude 1:7 is what NT readers THOUGHT (wrongly, as usual) that the Torah text meant. They were wrong.
PS. I don't know what you did to your reply - but it would not let me reply in a normal way.
Also - the way you put the text in - you did not put my name on my quotes, - and you DID put my name at the beginning of some of YOUR quotes to me, - thus making this very confusing to answer.
Part 2 to follow - way to long - for no reason - I might add.
*
