Homosexuality and the Scripture

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="043fd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Apostolic Restoration Mission </B></FONT><B>    </B><B> |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Apostolic Restoration Mission "><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id17.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Mission"><U>Mission</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="What We Believe"><U>What We Believe</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id30.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Church Directory"><U>Church Directory</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id22.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Ministerial Training"><U>Ministerial Training</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id23.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Ministerial Members"><U>Ministerial Members</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id31.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Outreach Ministry"><U>Outreach Ministry</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Church History"><U>Church History</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Testimonies"><U>Testimonies</U></A>   |   <B>Homosexuality and the Scripture</B>   |   <A HREF="id18.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Events"><U>Events</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id28.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Apostolic Intercessory Ministry"><U>Apostolic Intercessory Ministry</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id20.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Us"><U>Contact Us</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id29.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Guest Book"><U>Guest Book</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Related Links"><U>Related Links</U></A></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Biblical Study: What the Bible does and doesn't say. </B></div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="044d2043.jpg"> <div> <U>This page contains 4 studies</U> </div> <div> If you wish to scroll the  page to the study you would like to read. click on the links provided below.</div> <div> A<U>)Biblical Study of </U></div> <div>     <U> Homosexuality</U></div> <bR> <div> B) <A HREF="id27_m.htm#translation_errors_in_the_english_bible" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U><U>Translation Errors in</U></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id27_m.htm#translation_errors_in_the_english_bible" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U>     </U></A><A HREF="id27_m.htm#translation_errors_in_the_english_bible" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U><U> in the English Bible </U></U></A><A HREF="id27_m.htm#translation_errors_in_the_english_bible" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U>  </U></A>    </div> <div>    </div> <div> C)<A HREF="id27_m.htm#adam_and_eve_vs_adam_and_steve" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U> </U></A><A HREF="id27_m.htm#adam_and_eve_vs_adam_and_steve" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U><U>Adam and Eve</U></U></A></div> <div>                    <U>vs.</U></div> <div>     <U> Adam and Steve</U></div> <bR> <div> D)<A HREF="id27_m.htm#romans_126_27" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Homosexuality and the Scripture"><U><U> Romans 1:26-27</U></U></A></div> <bR> <div> If you are interested in a more complete study using the original Hebrew and Greek (This requires specific fonts),  please contact us and make a request.    </div> <div>    </div> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I>Homosexuality and the Scripture</I></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> A Biblically Based Study on Homosexuality in the Bible</div> <bR> <div> <B>Table of Contents</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>Introduction</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     3</FONT></div> <div> <U>Old Testament</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     4</FONT></div> <div> <U>Leviticus 18:22</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     4</FONT></div> <div> <U>Leviticus 20:13</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     4</FONT></div> <div> <U>I Samuel 18</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     4</FONT></div> <div> <U>I Samuel 20</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     5</FONT></div> <div> <U>II Samuel 1:26</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     6</FONT></div> <div> <U>The Sin of Sodom Wasn't What You Think</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     6</FONT></div> <div> <U>New Testament</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     12</FONT></div> <div> <U>Romans 1:26-27</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     12</FONT></div> <div> <U>I Corinthians 6:9</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     13</FONT></div> <div> <U>1 Timothy 1:10</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     14</FONT></div> <div> <U>Jude 7</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     14</FONT></div> <div> <U>Gay Culture from David and Jonathan's Era to Today</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     14</FONT></div> <div> <U>Marriage or Covenant </U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     16</FONT></div> <div> <U>Thoughts to Ponder</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     23</FONT></div> <div> <U>Internet Resources</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     24</FONT></div> <div> <U>References</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     25</FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Introduction</B></div> <bR> <div> The purpose of writing this document was threefold: 1) to understand for myself what the original Hebrew and Greek texts state concerning homosexuality, 2) to compile a concise, to the point, biblically based study, and 3) to share this information with anyone that wants to learn the truth, walk in greater love and more in Christ.     </div> <div> 2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. </div> <div> John 8:32 You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> The original Hebrew and Greek texts were studied for the purposes of this document.  The Hebrew and Greek words were not included in this document because most PCs and printers do not have the corresponding fonts loaded and the results would have been illegible.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Old Testament</B></div> <div> Leviticus 18:22</div> <div> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ASV</div> <bR> <div> Correct Hebrew translation: "and with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination".  </div> <bR> <div> It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur.  Culturally, a woman's bed was her own.  Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there.  Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement.  Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman's bed.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Leviticus 20:13</B></div> <div> 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.  KJV</div> <bR> <div> Correct Hebrew translation: "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them.</div> <bR> <div> Again it can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman's bed.</div> <bR> <div> <B>I Samuel 18</B></div> <div> 1 Sam 18:3-4 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.  And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. KJV </div> <bR> <div> In this passage it speaks of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit". Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times and in the Old Testament Hebrew, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and spiritually.     I Samuel 18:3-4 also tell us that Jonathan and David made a covenant, and that, to seal the covenant, Jonathan took off all the things he was wearing and gave them to David. The things he took off tell us a lot about the covenant itself. He took off his sword and bow and gave them to David, signifying that he intended to protect David. But it went further than that. By taking off all his clothes, he signified a much deeper and more intense relationship. Had this not been the start of a physical, sexual relationship, Jonathan's actions would have been considered bizarre indeed, by the standards of their day, or ours.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT></div> <bR> <div> 1 Sam 18:21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time. ASV  </div> <bR> <div> 1 Sam 18:21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in <I>the</I> <I>one of</I> the twain. KJV</div> <bR> <div> Notice that "the one of" is in italics in the KJV.  That means they are not found in the Hebrew text.  In fact, they are not even hinted at in the Hebrew text.  Adding them completely changed the meaning of the verse.  Verse 21 proves that Jonathan and David's covenant was a marriage covenant, and that Saul recognized the marriage, since, beside Michal, David had no marriage covenant with any of Saul's other children.  Although he was supposed to marry Saul's daughter Merab, that never happened.  Therefore, the only two of Saul's children he had covenants with were Jonathan and Michal.  Just as a point of information, Hebrew has no word for "son-in-law".  The Hebrew word used in the verse is a verb which means "to be related by marriage".  Since Saul used the verb in connection with David's impending marriage to Michal, it is clear that the relationship he referred to was indeed son-in-law. </div> <bR> <div> Also notice that King Saul didn't draw any distinction between David's marriage to Jonathan and his impending marriage to Michal.  Although Saul didn't approve of the marriage between the two men, 1 Sam 20:30, he still recognized it as a marriage, and not just two men living together. </div> <bR> <div> <B>I Samuel 20</B></div> <div> I Samuel 20:30 "Then Saul's anger burned toward Jonathan, and he said to him, Thou son of the perversion of rebelliousness! Don't I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion (see note) and the confusion of thy mother's *****?" (see note below)</div> <bR> <div> <U>Confusion</U> - The word confusion has a somewhat different meaning here than the one we usually use. Rather than meaning "being confused," it refers instead to being undone or frustrated in purpose. What Saul was saying was that by choosing David, Jonathan was a rebellious son who was confounding his own future, as well as the very reason that Saul and Jonathan's mother had conceived him, that is, to ascend to the throne of Israel when his father died. Saul expounded on this in verse 31, and then offered to "remedy" the situation by having David killed.  Saul's annoyance with his son's choice had nothing to do with David's gender, but only reflected the fact that as long as David was alive, Jonathan would never be king of Israel.</div> <div>       </div> <div> <U>*****</U> There is no polite English word for the phrase King Saul used. He used a graphic and vulgar term for the female genitalia.</div> <bR> <div> 1 Sam 20:41</div> <div> And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. KJV</div> <bR> <div> Correct Hebrew translation: </div> <div> I Samuel 20:41 "As soon as the boy was gone, David arose from the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. They kissed each other, and wept together, until David experienced an erection." (Hebrew:  "became large")<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>II Samuel 1:26</B></div> <div> I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.  KJV</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >David expressed his love for the late Jonathan.  Please understand that when David referred to the love of women, the only possible love he could be referring to was sexual love.  It was considered highly improper for a man to have any type of platonic friendship with a woman.  Men and women usually didn't even speak to each other in public.  Even a husband and wife would not speak to each other in the street. (The Chassidic Jews still observe this custom.)  Since David would not have had any platonic relationships with women, he could only have been referring to sexual interaction.  This is further indication of the sexual nature of his relationship with Jonathan, since it would not make sense to compare a platonic relationship with a man to a sexual relationship with a woman.  David clearly preferred the love of Jonathan.  Nowhere in scripture will you find David expressing such love for a woman.  Although he married more than once, and fathered children, he never expressed such love for any of his wives.</FONT>4  </div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>The Sin of Sodom Wasn't What You Think</B></div> <div> One of the more common arguments against homosexuality used to be the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I say <I>used to be,</I> because many biblical scholars and teachers have begun to realize that there is insufficient scriptural backing for that argument. Let us together take a clear, honest look at these cities, and let us determine who the inhabitants were, and why God destroyed them.</div> <div>  </div> <div> The first thing to realize is that it wasn't just two cities involved. Today, we only remember the names of two, but in truth, God was about to destroy <I>all</I> the cities of the plain. In addition to Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities of Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar were also set to be destroyed. (Gen. 14:2; Deut. 29:23) Zoar was spared so that Lot and his daughters could flee there, but Admah and Zeboiim met the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah. Another interesting point is that, at least in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible doesn't tell us their real names. Consider: The Hebrew word for Sodom is <I>S'dom</I> and means "burnt." The Hebrew word for Gomorrah is <I>'Amorah</I>, and means "a ruined heap." There can be no question that these names were given to the cities <I>after</I> they were destroyed and were not their original names. </div> <bR> <div> The inhabitants of these cities, like all the Canaanites, were worshippers of false gods. These included the god Molech, arguably the most horrible of all the idols of Canaan. Molech was a huge statue with his arms held out in front of him. A fire would be kindled between his arms, and then newborn children would be placed in his arms and burned alive. This was known as "passing your children through the fire to Molech."  Other practices engaged in by the Canaanites included adult human sacrifice, cannibalism, and temple prostitution. (Having sexual relations with temple prostitutes as a form of worship in fertility cults.)  Is it any wonder that God was determined to destroy these cities? From a spiritual perspective, people who worship idols and engage in the above-mentioned practices are extremely likely to become demon-possessed, and it is quite probable that many, if not most, of the inhabitants of the cities of the plain were possessed.</div> <bR> <div> Lot, Abraham's nephew, moved to the city of Sodom with his wife and two daughters. God sent two angels to Sodom in the evening, ostensibly to investigate the rumors of the sinfulness of the city. The real purpose of their visit, though, (since God already knew what was going on) was to rescue Lot and his family from the impending destruction. The account of their visit to the city is found in Genesis 19. Lot was sitting in the gate. This is significant. The person who sat in the gate, that is, the gatekeeper, was entrusted by the rulers of the city to monitor all traffic in and out of the city, and not to admit anyone who could endanger the city in any way. This was a serious responsibility, and the fact that it was given to Lot, who was not a native of the city, but a relative newcomer, was unusual.</div> <div>  </div> <div> A word about the angels: Forget, for a moment, the traditional stereotypes of angels, that is, women with flowing blond hair and huge feathered wings. In scripture, angels usually appeared in the form of men. Frequently, there was nothing unusual about their appearance that would suggest they were anything other than human beings.  Lot greeted the two visitors, as was his responsibility as gatekeeper. (He bowed to the ground, which was not an uncommon form of greeting from an inferior to a superior, in this case, from a public servant to strangers whose social status was unknown.) He then evidently inquired about their business in the city and specific destination, again, as part of his job. Upon learning that they intended to spend the night in the street, Lot insisted that they stay at his house. Some have argued that this was because he knew they would not be safe in the streets. The obvious aside, that there has probably never been a city where it is safe to sleep in the streets at night, the reason for Lot's insistence was actually quite different. It was simply the law of hospitality. This law was unwritten at the time, but was universal throughout the area. It simply stated that if a stranger came to your home or city, you were to treat them as if they were part of your family. You were responsible to lodge, feed and protect them, even at the cost of your own life. Examples of Abraham treating strangers in this way can be found both in scripture and other Jewish writings. This law was later included in the Law of Moses.</div> <bR> <div> After much urging from Lot, the two visitors went to Lot's house and he made dinner for them. Later that night, a mob formed outside of Lot's house, demanding he bring out the guests. Traditionalists would have us believe that the mob was made up of homosexual men, wanting to have sex with the angels. But a careful reading of the verses shows clearly that this was not the case. Gen. 19:4 tells us "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter." At first glance, it does appear to be a crowd of men. But let's look deeper. The phrase "the men of the city, even the men of Sodom" is a bit misleading. In Hebrew, "anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom," could also be translated as "the people of the city, the people of Sodom." But <I>is</I> that a more correct translation? The rest of the verse will answer that for us: "...both old and young, <B>all the people from every quarter</B>." There is no question, then, that the entire population of Sodom gathered outside Lot's house, men, women and children. This alone tells us that the traditionalists were wrong about the intent of this mob: If you are planning a homosexual orgy, you don't invite the wife and kids!</div> <bR> <div> Of course, this begs the question, how did this mob come to form, and what did they want? The Bible doesn't tell us, so we have to read between the lines and in so doing, backtrack from the mob scene outside Lot's house to where the crowd first gathered. First, the fact that the entire population of the city was involved tells us that this was, to them, a matter of vital civic importance. They evidently felt that the visit of these two strangers was something that could affect every person in the city in some way. So logic suggests that the gathering would have begun at whatever public place Sodom used for such things, such as a City Hall or public square. Here was the situation as they would have seen it: Lot, a stranger who moved here and was given a position of some responsibility, has invited two strangers of unknown origin into the city and into his home. Sodom had only recently come out of war (Gen. 14:1-2), and for all they knew, these men could have been spies. It was essential for the safety and peace of mind of all the citizens, that they determine the identity of these men. They knew, of course, of the law of hospitality, but the safety and security of the city overrode that. So a plan was devised: They would peacefully go to Lot's house and ask to meet the strangers and know who they were. They even had their words chosen: "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out and let us know them." It should be noted that this was phrased as a <I>request</I>, using a <I>polite</I> form of the verb <I>to know,</I> and was not phrased in a hostile, demanding way. And so the crowd began to move toward Lot's house.</div> <bR> <div> Between their starting point and Lot's house, something happened to this crowd of concerned citizens that turned them into a mob. When they reached Lot's house, they delivered their prepared request, but even though the grammar was still very polite, the character of the people was now that of an ugly lynch mob. What could have happened?</div> <div> If the people of Sodom were possessed, as they most likely were, this would explain what happened. Even though the <I>people</I> did not know the visitors were angels, the evil spirits inside of them <I>did. </I>When you put a devil in the presence of someone holy, there will ALWAYS be a reaction from the devil. (See Mark 5:1-7) The closer this crowd got to the angels at Lot's house, the more riled up the demons got, and the more out of control the people got. This seems the only plausible explanation. The polite grammar of the crowd shows clearly that they could not have started out as a mob.</div> <bR> <div> 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 me state categorically, that the Hebrew text will <B>NOT</B> 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 <I>yada</I>. A form of <I>yada</I> 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. </div> <bR> <div> When the crowd outside Lot's house said they wanted to know the visitors, they meant exactly that: To know who they were. Or at least, that was what they meant when they started out.  It doesn't take a genius to recognize a lynch mob. And a tiny family like Lot's couldn't hope to fight off such a mob. The only hope in such cases is to try to talk them out of it, or, failing in that, to try to distract them in some way. Lot tried both. He went out to them and asked them not to behave so wickedly. The hostile intent of the mob was clear to him, despite the polite words they used. It was also clear immediately that talking was not going to work. They were in what could only be termed a bloodlust. Lot, in desperation to protect his guests, did what the law of hospitality required. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of his daughters to protect the guests. A word about the two daughters: These girls were engaged to two men from Sodom. An engagement was much more binding in those days than it is today. In fact, it was as binding as a marriage, and even gave Lot legal authority over his daughters' fiancés. Lot offered his two daughters, still virgins, to the crowd in place of the strangers. If he could distract the men of the crowd, then they, as the leaders of the city, could have disbanded the mob, and the guests would be safe.</div> <bR> <div> Consider this: If the men of Sodom were homosexual, there is no way Lot would not have known. He would have known it would be pointless to offer women to homosexual men. He could, and would, have offered them something they would be more likely to accept: He could have offered his sons in law, since the engagement of his daughters gave him that right, or, he could even have offered himself.  Lot's offer was refused, and they seized him, and said they were going to do worse to him than they were planning to do to his guests. Did they attempt any type of sexual contact with Lot? No! Instead, they tried to kill him. There was no sexual situation here at all. But, just for the sake of argument, if the intent of the crowd had been to force the angels to have sex, the crime would have been rape, not homosexuality.</div> <bR> <div> Ezekiel recorded the sins of Sodom: Ezek. 16:49:50 - pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, they were haughty and committed abomination. A note about this unspecified abomination: In the Law of Moses, many things are called abomination, including such things as eating pork and shellfish, having sex with a woman during her period, etc.  But Sodom, et al, were destroyed <I>before</I> the Law was written, so we'll need to look outside the Law for the definition of this word. Outside the Law, the word abomination almost always refers to the practices associated with idol worship, some of which were enumerated earlier.</div> <bR> <div> What are Sodomites? In modern times, the word sodomy is incorporated into many states' laws. But it does not mean the same thing in each state. In some states, sodomy refers only to anal intercourse. In other states, it also includes homosexual oral sex, and in some states, it even includes heterosexual oral sex. For some, anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse is sodomy. (This means that in some states, even heterosexual oral sex is illegal!) These definitions all go back to the incorrect notion that Sodom was destroyed for "unnatural" sexual activity. As we have seen above, this simply wasn't the case. But what abut biblical references to Sodomites? In the King James Version, this word can be found in two places: Deut. 23:17 and 2 Kings 23:7. In some translations, the word is even found in the New Testament. But if we look at the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, that is, if we look at the Bible in its original languages, we will never see the word Sodomite in there. So when we see it in an English translation, we must acknowledge that the translators have lied to us. Let us look at the above two verses in more detail: Deut. 23:17 tells us that there will not be a "whore" of the daughters of Israel, nor a "Sodomite" of the sons of Israel. Now, if we look at the verse in the Hebrew text, it tells us that there will not be a <I>k'deshah</I> of the daughters of Israel nor a <I>kadesh</I> of the sons of Israel. Even if you don't know a word of Hebrew, you can see that the words are very similar. In fact, <I>k'deshah</I> is simply the feminine form of <I>kadesh</I>, so whatever it is that the daughters were not to be, is exactly the same as what the sons were not to be. So which is it, whore, or Sodomite? Actually, neither. A <I>k'deshah</I> is not a prostitute in the usual sense, that is, not the "street hostesses" who ply their living by having sex for money. Rather, <I>kadesh</I> and <I>k'deshah</I> are temple prostitutes. These were a feature of Babylonian, and later Canaanite, fertility religions. The temple prostitutes usually lived in or near the temple, and having sex with one of them was a form of worship to the goddess of fertility. The money paid to the prostitute was put in the temple treasury. It should be noted that both men and women would visit the temple prostitutes to "worship" in this way. It should also be noted that because this was part of a fertility cult, temple prostitution was ALWAYS heterosexual. Israel ignored this law fairly early in their history. In 1 Samuel, 2:22, we read that the two sons of the High Priest Eli, Hophni and Phineas, who were themselves priests, were having sex with the women of Israel in the doorway of the Tabernacle (this public location proves this was temple prostitution, and not just the two men cheating on their wives).</div> <div> Let's look now at 2 Kings 23:7: The translation in the King James refers to Sodomites again, but also is in error with other parts of the translation, so the verse is reproduced here translated directly from the Hebrew text: "And he broke down the houses of the temple prostitutes (Hebrew: <I>k'deshim</I>) that were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove houses (i.e., shrines) for Asherah." (Note: Asherah was one of the names given to the Babylonian fertility goddess.)</div> <bR> <div> One final thought about the cities of the plain, that is, Sodom, etc.: Jude 7 talks about the people of these cities giving themselves over to fornication (definition: any sexual activity outside of marriage, including temple prostitution) and "going after strange flesh." (King James Version). What does that last part mean? The truth is, no one knows. But the translation isn't exact. The Greek does not say "strange flesh," but rather "other flesh." The word for <I>other</I> is "heteros", which is the root of our word <I>heterosexual</I>. Exactly what the phrase means is unclear. But since the word translated as <I>flesh</I> is also the word for <I>meat</I>, it is quite likely that it is referring to the practices of cannibalism associated with early Canaanite culture.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>New Testament</B></div> <div> Romans 1:26-27</div> <div> Romans 1 does not paint a picture of people who were naturally homosexual engaging in loving consensual sex.  Rather they were heterosexuals who "abandoned" their heterosexuality in favor of sexual activity foreign to their nature.</div> <bR> <div> Rom 1:26-27</div> <div> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:</div> <bR> <div> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.</div> <div> KJV</div> <bR> <div> Correct Greek Translation: </div> <div> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto disgraceful passions: for their women exchanged the instinctive use (sexual intercourse) into that which is contrary to native disposition.</div> <bR> <div> 27 And likewise also the men, laying aside their instinctive use (sexual intercourse) of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.  </div> <bR> <div> Through this God gave them over to passions of dishonor; their women exchanged, not changed the natural use (intercourse) into one against nature, likewise also the men left or laid aside their natural use (intercourse) of the female, burned in their lust for each other, males with males, committing an indecency, receiving in themselves the necessary reward for their error.  Exchanging means giving up something you have for something you want.  Change means an alteration, keeping something you have and altering it someway.</div> <bR> <div> <B> </B>The biggest mistake Christians make with Paul's epistle to the church at Rome is in their failure to comprehend Romans 1:7.  Paul's epistle was addressed to first century Rome, not twenty-first century America.  Does this mean the epistle doesn't apply to us?  Of course not; it certainly applies to every age and nation.  But what verse 7 reminds us is that when we read the epistle, we need to keep in mind that it was written to first century Rome, and applies first and foremost to the situations that were extant then.</div> <bR> <div> What <I>was</I> going on in Rome?  The ancient Greek and Roman concept of what was normal and what was moral was quite different from twenty-first century America's.  Both ancient empires considered bisexuality to be the normal, cultural orientation.</div> <bR> <div>  The biggest problem with such a notion is that most people are not bisexual.  This meant that the majority of people had to disregard their sexual orientation in order to meet society's expectations.  In the verse above, it can be seen that Paul spoke about the Roman women exchanging the "natural" use or intercourse into that which was against "nature," and the Roman men leaving the "natural" intercourse with women.  Now, please understand what Paul meant by his use of the words "natural" and "nature."  He did not mean nature as "creation."  (In fact, homosexuality occurs "naturally" among all higher forms of animals.  Since it occurs in "nature," it cannot be considered "unnatural" or "against nature [as creation].")  Rather, Paul spoke of the Romans' <U>own</U> nature, that is, their sexual orientation.  Since the majority of people are heterosexual by orientation, it was of the Roman heterosexuals that Paul spoke.  The heterosexual women attempted to exchange their "natural" orientation into that which was against <U>their own</U> nature.  It was this attempted change Paul opposed, not the actual concept of Lesbian sexuality.</div> <bR> <div> Likewise, heterosexual Roman men left the natural (i.e., according to <U>their own</U> nature) intercourse with women, and engaged in homosexual relations.  The resulting activity was "unseemly" and an "error" <I>only</I> because the men were heterosexual by orientation.  Again, it was their attempt to violate their own nature, that is, their attempt to alter the orientation God created them with, that Paul was addressing.</div> <bR> <div> The bottom line is, God created each of us with a sexual orientation.  To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong.  The creation (us) does not have the right to "re-create" itself.</div> <bR> <div> Some may think it unlikely that heterosexuals in the first century would force themselves to engage in homosexual relations simply because society expected them to.  And yet, today, in many parts of the world, homosexuals are forcing themselves to engage in heterosexual relations for the very same reason:  Society expects it.  But if it was wrong for heterosexuals in the first century to tamper with their sexual orientation, then it is equally wrong for homosexuals today to tamper with theirs.</div> <bR> <div> <B>I Corinthians 6:9</B></div> <bR> <div> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind  KJV</div> <bR> <div> The verses "Do you not know the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God". Believers in Jesus Christ are never referred to as wicked but righteous.  This passage is not addressing Christians rather it is addressing unbelievers. Regardless of what one does or does not do if they reject Jesus Christ they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.</div> <div> In many Bibles the original Greek word <I>malakoi</I> has been translated as effeminate, homosexual, or homosexual offenders.  <I>Malakoi</I> is related to the word <I>malakos </I>which literally means "soft". Our current word, malleable comes from <I>malakos</I>, and means bendable.  We can use the meaning of malleable, or bendable, or spineless. Its meaning is interpreted as "soft ones" meaning wealthy people who do not care anything about those less off.</div> <div> The original Greek word <I>arsenokoitai</I> has been translated as homosexuals, those who have sex with men or abusers of themselves with mankind.  It is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether Paul was speaking of men having sex with men, or women having sex with men. The majority of grammatical evidence we have suggests that he was speaking of <I>women</I> having sex with men, for example, prostitutes. However, whether he was referring to men, to women, or to both, the significant thing is that he was referring to sexual activity <I>outside of marriage.</I> History documents the fact that the Christian church, from its earliest years, was performing wedding ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Therefore, this verse could not be seen as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. The book <B>Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe</B> by the late John Boswell is recommended for more information on this subject.</div> <bR> <div> Links:</div> <div> <U><http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Cultures_and_Groups/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/History/Middle_Ages/></U></div> <bR> <div> <B>1 Timothy 1:10</B></div> <div> For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;</div> <div> The Greek word <I>arsenokoitais</I> is also utilized in this verse (see notes on 1 Cor 6:9). </div> <bR> <div> <B>Jude 7</B></div> <div> Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. KJV</div> <bR> <div> The Greek word translated as "strange" in the KJV is heteras, and it means "other," not "strange.  This verse is more accurately translated as "Just like Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them in the same way, surrendering themselves to fornication and pursuing other flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." </div> <bR> <div> <B>Gay Culture from David and Jonathan's Era to Today</B></div> <bR> <div> First let's establish that there was no gay culture in David and Jonathan's era as we understand it. Although homosexuals have always been a minority, they were, until around the 13th century, a fully integrated minority. Therefore, no gay culture or subculture was necessary.  </div> <bR> <div> The Bible documents that David behaved himself wisely, a more modern equivalent would be that David played his cards right. He was in the equivalent of a soap opera.  He was anointed as a child to be king in place of Saul. But as far as Saul was concerned, his eldest son Jonathan would be his successor. And then, to add a twist to the plot, the eldest son goes and makes a covenant/marriage vow with the man Saul could only view as a "pretender to the throne."  (See "Marriage or Covenant" section)  David probably felt uncomfortable around King Saul once he appreciated the delicacy of the situation. Living in that household must have been very stressful for David, and he probably felt like he was walking on eggshells around his father-in-law. And of course, as the king's son-in-law, he was expected to join them for meals.  He walked the tightrope between honoring the king, loving his husband, but also knowing that God had chosen him to be the next king. Jonathan must have known that too, but his love for David was clearly stronger than his desire for the throne. Not much different than the English King who abdicated the throne to marry the outcast American divorcee in the first half of the 20th century or for the King of Glory who surrendered His throne to take on flesh and woo the outcast woman of sin at the well in Samaria, who represents all of us.  </div> <bR> <div> David's affections are not mentioned at the time of the covenant. Although they may have been real, politically they were not significant. A monarch, and a monarch's child, had the right to choose a spouse, whether the spouse was willing or not. The King of the Medo-Persian empire married Hadassah, a Jewish captive whom he renamed Esther. She had no actual say in the matter. So when Jonathan fell head over heels in love with David, he decided to marry him. David's own feelings did not have to be considered, legally speaking. But just from what we see of their enduring relationship, David apparently had no objections. We find at their secret meeting later that when they embraced and kissed, it was David who became physically aroused rather than Jonathan (See Marriage or Covenant section). And after Jonathan is killed, David expressed his feelings that Jonathan's love for him was wonderful. That's almost like saying that he loved Jonathan too. If he hadn't, Jonathan's death would not have been so problematic in that it cleared the way to the throne. But at that moment, David cared more for the loss of Jonathan than for the throne. Just as Jonathan had done by marrying him in the first place, David showed that he loved Jonathan more than the chance to be king. </div> <bR> <div> When homosexuals began to be a despised minority in the middle ages, they had to learn to hide. The "closet" was born. Through the centuries, the oppression increased, decreased, increased again, etc.  In 1969 in New York City was not the first homosexual rights movement. There was a similar movement in Europe in the late 19th century, starting in Germany. It was reaction to that that caused England to enact its first Sodomy laws at that time. The gay rights movement grew and prospered, and even spread to the United States, at least in enlightened areas, such as Hollywood and Greenwich Village. The rise of Nazi power in Europe in the 1930's destroyed the gay rights movement. Hitler and his people opposed homosexuality as being less than human and therefore unfit for his Aryan race. Thousands upon thousands of European homosexuals were arrested and put in concentration camps, the men wearing pink triangles, the women wearing black. (Black triangles were for social misfits, which is how they classified Lesbians). When the camps were liberated by the Allies, all prisoners were released except the homosexuals. They were sent to civilian prisons to complete their sentences.  Different code words and signals were used by gay people through the centuries to identify each other. In Europe, the word was "blue." This word was used from France all the way to Russia (in their respective languages, of course) to help homosexuals identify other homosexuals. But in America, the word gay came into use. But the word didn't go "public" (or we could say, the word didn't come out of the closet) until the late 1960's. Prior to that, only those inside the closet, gays, and a few very close sympathizers, knew what gay meant. Stonewall changed that in June 1969. Coincidentally, the sexual revolution was taking place at the same time in the heterosexual community. The world was throwing off its Victorian prudery and ignorance, and people for the first time were learning about sex and talking about sex.  So the sexual revolution did away with sexual ignorance, but it also did away with sexual morality. The loss of ignorance was good. The loss of morality was not. Unfortunately, in this atmosphere of sexual "glasnost" the modern gay rights movement was born. And like the sexual revolution, it came out in sexual excess including parades with mostly naked people etc.  </div> <bR> <div> Another part of this story has to do with the traditional promiscuity of homosexuals, leading many to claim that homosexuals are not capable of monogamous long term relationships. But unfortunately, this was a catch-22. There was no way to win. The very society that claimed homosexuals couldn't maintain such relationships forbid us to have them! Homosexual activity had been illegal and continues to be illegal in many, many places for decades, and even centuries. Two people of the same sex who tried to form their own marriage and create a household together risked arrest, disgrace, imprisonment, loss of employment, family, etc. Homosexuals who were known to be homosexual were (and often still are) denied housing, employment, public accommodations (for example, in NYC until the 1970's it was illegal to serve alcohol to homosexuals), etc. Vice squads raided bars and baths, these were the only "secret" places gay people could meet, and printed the names of those arrested in the newspapers. Is it any wonder that most gay people chose to live in the closet? And being denied the opportunity to meet, date, and marry someone of the same sex, they found that the only outlet for their normal sexual drives was anonymous sex... sex with strangers. The less they knew about each other, the safer for both. So the gay community was forced into such "lifestyles" by an oppressive society, and then, condemned by that same society for taking the only avenue they left open to us. The homosexual history prior to the middle-ages was nothing like that. Homosexuals were integrated into society, allowed to date, marry, etc., just like everyone else. So the current common so-called "gay lifestyle" is not something that is inherent to our nature... it is the result of centuries of oppression, persecution, and being given no other options. Does that justify promiscuity, public nudity and lewdness? No. It only explains it. Gay people who become Christian must alter their lives, just as heterosexuals must. Exactly what needs to be altered depends on the individual, and should be directed by the Holy Ghost.  </div> <bR> <div> <B>Marriage or Covenant </B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>I</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >n this section, we will attempt to determine if there is biblical precedent for same-sex marriages. In the Apostolic Church, we are aware that we must have a minimum of two biblical witnesses in order to teach something. Therefore, we will need to find two examples of same-sex marriage in the Bible in order to declare such marriages valid today.</FONT></div> <div>    Prior to searching for these two witnesses, it is necessary to lay some groundwork, starting with the definition of the word "marriage." The modern concept of marriage is this:  a couple with a government-issued license, making vows before a minister, priest, rabbi, other clergyman, or a justice of the peace. Such a concept of marriage is modern, and does not match the biblical concept of marriage.</div> <div>    Perhaps the most important difference between biblical marriage and its modern day counterpart is that marriage in biblical times was not regulated by the government. There was no such thing as a marriage license, nor did the government care who married whom, or how many wives a man had.</div> <div>    The early concept of marriage was this:  two people made a covenant with each other. Regardless of whether they did this of their own accord, or through a matchmaker, or at the insistence of their families, the marriage began with the agreement or covenant between the two. Some time afterward, there would be a feast for public recognition of the agreement, and a contract would be signed by both parties, putting in writing what they had already promised to each other. After this was done, and <I>only</I> then, would the couple live together and be intimate with each other. Prior to the signing of the covenant, the couple was spoken of as betrothed or engaged, but this had a meaning different from today's concept of betrothal or engagement. Their betrothal was as morally binding as the marriage itself, and could only be broken by divorce, even though no contract had been signed and no sexual activity had occurred.</div> <div>    An example of this can be seen in Matthew 1:19, with Joseph and Mary. At this point in their relationship, they were betrothed. They had not moved in together, had not signed a contract, had not had a marriage feast, and had not had sexual contact. All they had was the agreement they had made with each other, their covenant. But when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant, he thought she had been unfaithful, and decided not to marry her. He could have had her stoned to death for committing adultery, but chose instead to divorce her privately. The King James Version says "put her away." The Greek word means divorce. Even though they had none of the things that would make a modern marriage binding, they were considered married, simply on the basis of their agreement to each other! So for a biblical definition of marriage we have simply one thing:  a covenant. When two people make an agreement between themselves that they will live their lives together as a couple and be faithful to each other, then, biblically, they are married. They may choose to sign a contract, they may choose to have a ceremony and reception, they may choose any other forms of public recognition, but none of those are required biblically for the marriage to be binding.</div> <div>    One final point before we search scripture for examples of same-sex marriage:  We'll be using primarily the King James Version of scripture, with corrections to translation errors provided by the Hebrew and Greek text. It needs to be understood by the reader that words which appear in <I>italics</I> in the King James Version are not found in the Hebrew or Greek text, but were added by the translators. Sometimes those added words help clarify a concept, and adding an occasional article (a, an, the) or preposition is a valid part of translation. Literal word-for-word translation is usually impossible and rarely desirable. For example, let us take the Hebrew word <I>b'mish'k'noteicha.</I> Even though it is only one word in Hebrew, it is impossible to translate it into English with less than three words. It means <I>in thy tabernacles. </I>But sometimes the added words of the translators do us a disservice. Sometimes they completely change the meaning (which is usually what they intended to do.) For example Colossians 1:19. Notice in the King James Version that the word <I>Father</I> is in italics. Other translations may have the word <I>God</I> where the King James has <I>Father.</I> But the Greek text has neither. The verse in Greek says <I>For all fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.</I> (Compare Col. 2:9) By inserting <I>Father</I> or <I>God,</I> the translators changed the meaning of what Paul wrote. Not only is that not helpful, it's <I>sinful!</I> (Rev. 22:18-19)</div> <div>    In I Samuel chapter 18, David and Jonathan met for the first time. It was love at first sight. Verse 1 tells us that the soul of Jonathan was knit, or intertwined, with the soul of David. Lest we think of this simply as something spiritual, let us look at the meaning of <I>soul.</I> There is an erroneous conception that the soul is similar to, or synonymous with, the spirit. Some preachers try to turn us into a sort of trinity, claiming that we are made up of three parts, that is, body, soul and spirit. But the scripture does not say this. We know from Genesis 2:7 that God formed our bodies out of the dust of the earth. It then says in the same verse that He breathed into our nostrils the breath of life, i.e., spirit (in Hebrew, Greek and some other languages, the word for wind and spirit are the same), and man <I><B><U>became</U></B></I> a living soul. So the formula isn't</div> <bR> <div> BODY + SOUL + SPIRIT = MAN,</div> <bR> <div> <I><B>but rather,</B></I></div> <bR> <div> BODY + SPIRIT = SOUL.</div> <bR> <div> Therefore when the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, it was not simply a spiritual thing; it was physical as well. Jonathan loved David with body <I>and</I> spirit.</div> <div>    I Samuel 18:3-4 tell us that Jonathan and David made a covenant, and that, to seal the covenant, Jonathan took off all the things he was wearing and gave them to David. The things he took off tell us a lot about the covenant itself. He took off his sword and bow and gave them to David, signifying that he intended to protect David. But it went further than that. By taking off all his clothes, he signified a much deeper and more intense relationship. Had this not been the start of a physical, sexual relationship, Jonathan's actions would have been considered bizarre indeed, by the standards of their day, or ours.  From that day, David moved in with Jonathan (verse 2) and did not live at home with his parents anymore, further indicative of the type of covenant they had made. (In biblical times, a man did not leave his parents' home until he married, and sometimes not even then.)</div> <div>    At this point, we need to clarify a few points before going on. First, we need to understand that today's concept of monogamy was not considered the norm in biblical days. Especially among royalty, polygamy was considered essential in order to produce a large number of heirs, which would ensure that the throne would remain in the same family. Jonathan was the eldest son of the king, and had a responsibility to produce at least one heir to the throne. He did so. David had been anointed to be king by the prophet Samuel. This placed the obligation of producing an heir upon him as well. King Saul was well aware that David was anointed by Samuel, and he warned his son that as long as David lived, Jonathan would never be king. This is why the relationship between the two young men bothered Saul so much. The very reason he had fathered Jonathan was so that his son would succeed him as king, and now Jonathan was thwarting that purpose by becoming involved with the very man who threatened that royal succession!</div> <div>    Saul sought a way to kill David. Because David was anointed, and was also very popular, it would be inadvisable for Saul to attempt to kill him outright. He preferred that the Philistines do it for him. He reasoned that if he got David to marry his daughter Merab, she would cause him enough distraction that he would fall to his enemies. But when the time came for David and Merab to make a covenant, Saul married her off to someone else instead. (David had no objection to the marriage one way or the other, so most likely Merab herself objected.) Then Saul got wind of the fact that another of his daughters, Michal, loved David. He decided to let her marry David, again for the sole purpose of causing him to fall to his enemies. (See I Sam. 18:17, 21)</div> <div>    When Saul told David that he would give him Michal, he went on to tell David that once he married her, he would be the king's son-in-law "in <I>one of</I> the twain." (Verse 21 - King James Version) That phrase is very important. Let's put it into modern English first: "through <I>one of</I> the two." This suggests that he would be Saul's son-in-law through Michal instead of Merab. But notice that the words <I>one of</I> are in italics. That means they are not found in the Hebrew text. In fact, they are not even hinted at in the Hebrew text. Adding them completely changed the meaning of the verse. What Saul actually told David was that once he married Michal, he would be the king's son-in-law through two (or both). That is, he would be the king's son-in-law twice, through two of Saul's children. With which of Saul's children did David have a covenant? Only three of Saul's children are mentioned in this chapter. David had no covenant with Merab, who married someone else. He was about to make a covenant with Michal. The only other child of Saul with whom David had a covenant was Jonathan. Verse 21 proves that the covenant was a marriage covenant and that Saul recognized (but didn't necessarily approve of) the marriage.</div> <div>    Note the following verses which the King James and other English Bibles have mistranslated to hide the marriage of David and Jonathan:</div> <div>    </div> <div>    I Samuel 20:30 -- "Then Saul's anger burned toward Jonathan, and he said to him, Thou son of the perversion of rebelliousness! Don't I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion (see note) and the confusion of thy mother's *****?" (see note below)</div> <bR> <div> <U>Confusion</U> - The word confusion has a somewhat different meaning here than the one we usually use. Rather than meaning "being confused," it refers instead to being undone or frustrated in purpose. What Saul was saying was that by choosing David, Jonathan was a rebellious son who was confounding his own future, as well as the very reason that Saul and Jonathan's mother had conceived him, that is, to ascend to the throne of Israel when his father died. Saul expounded on this in verse 31, and then offered to "remedy" the situation by having David killed.  Saul's annoyance with his son's choice had nothing to do with David's gender, but only reflected the fact that as long as David was alive, Jonathan would never be king of Israel.</div> <div>       </div> <div> <U>*****</U> There is no polite English word for the phrase King Saul used. He used a graphic and vulgar term for the female genitalia.</div> <bR> <div> I Samuel 20:41 -- "As soon as the boy was gone, David arose from the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. They kissed each other, and wept together, until David experienced an erection." (Hebrew:  "became large")</div> <bR> <div>    In II Samuel, 1:26, David expressed his love for the late Jonathan. Please understand that when David referred to the love of women, the only possible love he could be referring to was sexual love. It was considered highly improper for a man to have any type of platonic friendship with a woman. Men and women usually didn't even speak to each other in public. Even a husband and wife would not speak to each other in the street. (The Chassidic Jews still observe this custom.) Since David would not have had any platonic relationships with women, he could only have been referring to sexual interaction. This is a further indication of the sexual nature of his relationship with Jonathan, since it would not make sense to compare a platonic relationship with a man to a sexual relationship with a woman. David clearly preferred the love of Jonathan.  Nowhere in scripture will you find David expressing such love for a woman. Although he married more than once, and fathered children, he never expressed such love for any of his wives.</div> <bR> <div>    We have one witness of same-sex marriage so far. Let's find another:</div> <bR> <div>    In Daniel 1:3, we meet Ashpenaz, chief of the Babylonian eunuchs. He was put in charge of the new eunuchs brought in from Judah, the princes and chief young men who had been castrated in fulfillment of prophecy (II Kings 20:18; Isaiah 39:7).  Among these were Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. All four were eunuchs.</div> <div>    Before going on, we need to discuss the concept of eunuchs and the effect of castration. Were eunuchs capable of sexual function? There is no set answer to the question. It depends upon when they were castrated. Boys castrated before puberty, as was sometimes done to keep their singing voices from changing, would not develop sexually and would have no sexual function. They would still have normal desire for physical and emotional closeness, but could not function sexually. Those castrated after puberty would be sterile, but would most likely retain some sexual function and desire. This can be seen in the case of cats. A male kitten castrated before puberty does not develop sexually, and usually will not display any of the behaviors of adult male cats, such as spraying and mounting other cats. Male cats castrated after puberty will usually continue to spray and to mount other cats, but will be sterile.</div> <div>    What about the young men of Judah? The prophecy spoke of the young <I>men</I> of Judah, not boys. The fact that Daniel and the others were able to speak for themselves and stand up for themselves indicates they were at least in their teens. The fact that they stood up for their religion indicates that they were at least of age for Bar Mitzvah, signifying spiritual adulthood, generally age thirteen. So it seems pretty evident that these young men were castrated after, or at least during, puberty, and would therefore retain some sexual function. We have no information from scripture about the personal lives of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. But scripture does give us some clues as to Daniel's personal life.</div> <div>    In Daniel 1:9, we find that a certain relationship existed between Daniel and Ashpenaz (who was also a eunuch). To determine the exact nature of that relationship, we'll need to dig a little deeper than the English translation, which actually tells us very little. The King James speaks of <I>favor and tender love. </I>The Hebrew words are <I>chesed v'rachamim.</I> Let's look at <I>chesed</I> first. <I>Chesed</I> has more than one possible translation. The most common is <I>mercy.</I> It is also translated as <I>grace.</I> The scriptures which say <I>His mercy endureth forever</I> use a form of the word <I>chesed.</I></div> <div>   What about <I>rachamim?</I> (The <I>v</I>' as seen above - <I><U>v'</U></I><I>rachamim </I>- is the Hebrew word for <I>and,</I> which cannot stand alone, but is attached to the word which follows it.) <I>Rachamim</I> also has more than one meaning. In addition, it is plural, which has more than one connotation in Hebrew. Let's deal with that aspect first, before determining the meaning. In Hebrew, using the plural is a way of emphasizing greatness or importance. Indeed, there are some Hebrew nouns which have no singular form, and are always used in the plural. Heaven, water, face: these are words which have no singular form in Hebrew, but are always plural. In addition, God, when referring to the true God, is usually plural in Hebrew, in order to emphasize His greatness. <I>Rachamim</I> is plural, not because there is more than one, but because of its greatness, intensity or depth.</div> <div>    So what does it mean? There are two common meanings for the word <I>rachamim</I>. One is similar to the meaning of <I>chesed</I>, that is, <I>mercy</I> or <I>grace</I>. The other is <I>love</I>. (More on that in a moment.) How would a reader determine which meaning is intended? From context. Since the word <I>chesed</I> was used, for <I>rachamim</I> to have the meaning of <I>mercy</I> would be redundant. It being plural would be even more redundant and would constitute a very poorly constructed and confusing sentence. Therefore, <I>rachamim</I> would have to have its alternative meaning, <I>love</I>. But what kind of love? English is poor in that we only have one word for love, and must use other words to differentiate between types of love. The love between spouses is not the same as love between parents and children. The love between parents and children is not the same as love between friends. And yet, we have just the one word, love. Some languages, including Hebrew and Greek have more than one word for love. The passage in John 21 where Jesus kept asking Peter "Do you love me?" is much more significant if read in Greek:  Peter kept answering Jesus with the wrong word for love, embarrassed by the fact that Jesus was using Greek's most powerful word for love. Peter was basically answering, "Yes, I like you!"</div> <div>    Words in Hebrew are formed from root words, usually made up of three letters. Any words having those three letters in that order would have similar meanings. For example, most people are familiar with the word <I>shalom</I>, which means peace or welfare. The root letters are (sh-l-m). Any word with sh-l-m, in that order, regardless of other consonants or vowels added, would have a related meaning. The root letters of <I>rachamim</I> are (r-ch-m) (the final <I>im</I> of <I>rachamim</I> make it plural, and are not part of the root). There are many Hebrew words which share these root letters, including at least one sexual organ. This fact indicates that when <I>rachamim</I> is used to mean love, it has a definite physical, sexual aspect to it.</div> <div>    At this point, I would like the reader to notice who was responsible for Daniel and Ashpenaz having a sexual relationship.  According to verse 9, it was <U>God</U> who put them together in their relationship. Now God has no vested interest in people committing fornication, and the fact that rachamim means sexual <I>love</I>, and not just sexual <I>activity</I>, indicates to us that this was meant to be a life-long relationship between the two. And what do we call a life-long committed sexual relationship between two people? Marriage. No other romantic interest or sexual partner or marriage was ever mentioned in connection with Daniel in the Bible. Ashpenaz was the only one mentioned.</div> <div> <I>   </I>We have two examples of same-sex marriages from scripture. But what rules should govern these marriages? It is true that scripture does not give us rules specifically governing same-sex marriages. Does that mean we are free to make our own? No. Notice again in I Samuel 18 that King Saul didn't seem to draw any distinction between David's marriage to Jonathan and his impending marriage to Michal. Although Saul didn't approve of the marriage between the two men, he still recognized it as a marriage, and not just two men living together. Therefore it seems evident that the instructions given in the Bible for opposite-sex marriages were also meant to be applied to same-sex marriages.</div> <bR> <div> History documents the fact that the Christian church, from its earliest years, was performing wedding ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.  The book "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by the late John Boswell is recommended for more information on this subject. </div> <div> <B>Thoughts to Ponder</B></div> <div> Gal 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.  ASV</div> <div> Out of the 31,173 verses contained in the Bible, there are less than a dozen that allegedly deal with the topic of homosexuality. The meaning of these verses remains fairly obscure to many Biblical scholars, especially in the context of loving committed relationships. Jesus himself said nothing, which leads many people to believe that the subject of homosexuality was not a concern. Interestingly enough, the word <I>homosexual</I> did not appear in any translation of the Bible until 1946.  Likewise, there are words in the Greek language for same-sex sexual activities, yet they never appear in the original text of the New Testament. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Internet Resources</B></div> <div> <U>Amazon.com <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0226067114/whosoevanonlinemA/102-4065105-3468166></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>Bibliographies for Gay Studies <http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaybib.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>Before You Begin Studying The "Clobber" Passages: What is the Answer? <http://www.freedominchrist-sf.org/article_rd.htm></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >   </FONT></div> <div> <U>John Boswell: The Church and the Homosexual <http://www.geocities.com/ninure/boswell01a.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>ChristianGay.com <http://www.christiangay.com/index.htm></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Christian and Gay <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianandGay/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <I><U>CHRISTIANITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY <http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/christ.htm></U></I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >       </FONT></div> <div> <U>Christianity and Homosexuality Reconciled <http://www.cebiaz.com/book/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>Dennis and Evelyn Schave Ministries <http://ministrygraphics.net/schave/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>Dispelling the Myth <http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/dispell.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Gay Christian Online <http://www.gaychristianonline.org></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Gay Culture in the Middle Ages <http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Cultures_and_Groups/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/History/Middle_Ages/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Homosexuality: Common Questions & Statements Addressed <http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/index.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>LesBiGay Bibliography <http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734/read.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Liberated Christians <http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/contents.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>People With A History <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>Same Sex Unions <http://home.aol.com/DrSwiney/great.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Spiritual Fruits Ministries <http://www.spiritualfruits.com/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Steps to Recover From Bible Abuse <http://www.truluck.com/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>The Bible and the Homosexual <http://www.postfun.com/pfp/homosexual.html></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT></div> <div> <U>The Church and the Homosexual <http://www.johnjmcneill.com/TCTH.HTML></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <U>Whosoever.org <http://www.whosoever.org/></U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div>  <A NAME="translation_errors_in_the_english_bible"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Translation Errors in the English Bible</div> <bR> <div> The following are verses which were mistranslated in the King James Version of 1611 A.D. Many of these errors are also present in other translations. They are presented here as they <I>should</I> have been translated. It should be noted that with only a few exceptions (Ps. 23:6; Ps. 27:10; Acts 2:38), all these mistranslations were <I>deliberate</I> and <I>intentional,</I> calculated to provide scriptural backing for doctrines the church had chosen to teach, but <I>knew</I> were without scriptural backing.</div> <bR> <div> One of the most shocking revelations to modern readers of the English Bible is the fact that no one in the Bible was named James. The name James is from the Gaelic <I>Seamas.</I> Neither James nor Seamas existed as a name in the first century. The men the English Bible calls James were really named Jacob (Hebrew <I>Ya'akov</I>). Why does the English Bible say James? What better way to flatter King James than to put his name in the Bible? Is James an acceptable translation of Ya'akov? No. Jacob is the only English form of that Hebrew name. The French and Spanish Bibles didn't do too well at translating that name either. Where the English Bible says James, the French says <I>Jacques,</I> and the Spanish says <I>Santiago.</I> Neither name is the correct translation for Ya'akov. (In defense of the Spanish, Santiago is a contraction of the Spanish words for <I>Saint Jacob,</I> but there was no legitimate need for inventing a new word, since the Spanish form of Jacob would have done fine.) Jacques is the French form of <I>Jack,</I> but not the French form of Jacob.</div> <bR> <div> Leviticus 18:22 -- "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.''</div> <bR> <div> Leviticus 20:13 -- "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will die, their blood is in them (figuratively, on them.)"</div> <bR> <div> Deuteronomy 6:4 -- "Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God. The LORD is one."</div> <div>                                 </div> <div> (Note: The word LORD in all capital letters signifies the use in Hebrew of the Name of God. The original pronunciation has been lost because old Hebrew was written without vowels. The consonants of the Name are YHVH. The modern pronunciations Jehovah and Yahweh are both incorrect since Hebrew has neither a J nor a W. However, lacking the proper pronunciation, there is really nothing wrong with using one of the standard pronunciations.)</div> <bR> <div> Deuteronomy 23:17 -- "There will not be a temple prostitute of the daughters of Israel, nor will there be a temple prostitute of the sons of Israel."</div> <bR> <div> I Samuel 18:21 -- "And Saul said, I will give her to him, so that she will be a snare to him, and so the hand of the Philistines will be against him. So Saul said to David, Today thou shalt be my son-in-law through two." (i.e., through two of Saul's children, Jonathan and Michal.  See note.)</div> <bR> <div> (Note: In verse three of this chapter, Jonathan and David made a covenant with each other. Verse 21, when properly translated, proves that it was a marriage covenant, and that Saul recognized the marriage, since, beside Michal, David had no marriage covenant with any of Saul's other children. Although he was supposed to marry Saul's daughter Merab, that never happened.  Therefore, the only two of Saul's children he had covenants with were Jonathan and Michal. Just as a point of information, Hebrew has no word for "son-in-law." The Hebrew word used in the verse is a verb which means "to be related by marriage." Since Saul used the verb in connection with David's impending marriage to Michal, it is clear that the relationship he referred to was indeed son-in-law.)</div> <bR> <div> I Samuel 20:30 -- "Then Saul's anger burned toward Jonathan, and he said to him, Thou son of the perversion of rebelliousness! Don't I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion (see note) and the confusion of thy mother's *****?" (see note)</div> <div>                             </div> <div> <U>confusion</U> The word confusion has a somewhat different meaning here than the one we usually use. Rather than meaning "being confused," it refers instead to being undone or frustrated in purpose. What Saul was saying was that by choosing David, Jonathan was a rebellious son who was confounding his own future, as well as the very reason that Saul and Jonathan's mother had conceived him, that is, to ascend to the throne of Israel when his father died. Saul expounded on this in verse 31, and then offered to "remedy" the situation by having David killed.  Saul's annoyance with his son's choice had nothing to do with David's gender, but only reflected the fact that as long as David was alive, Jonathan would never be king of Israel.</div> <bR> <div> ***** There is no polite English word for the phrase King Saul used. He used a graphic and vulgar term for the female genitalia.</div> <bR> <div> I Samuel 20:41 -- "As soon as the boy was gone, David arose from the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. They kissed each other, and wept together, until David experienced an erection." (Hebrew:  <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>higdil</I></FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Cyrillic6" > </FONT>"became large")</div> <bR> <div> II Kings 23:7 -- "And he broke down the houses of the temple prostitutes that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove houses (i.e., shrines) for Asherah."</div> <div> (Note: Asherah was one of the names of the Babylonian fertility goddess, Semiramis. She is also known by the names of Ashtaroth, Ashtoreth, and Astarte, and by the titles goddess of liberty, queen of heaven, and Ish Tar [Chaldean for "The Woman" in the sense of "the prostitute."].)</div> <bR> <div> Psalm 23:6 -- "Surely goodness and mercy will pursue me (or <I>chase me </I>or <I>hunt me down</I>) all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD to length of days."</div> <bR> <div> Psalm 27:10 -- "My father and my mother have forsaken me, but the LORD took me up."</div> <div>                                </div> <div> Mark 12:29 -- "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God. The LORD is one.'"</div> <bR> <div> John 1:1-2 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word pertained to God, and God was the Word. This pertained to God in the beginning."</div> <bR> <div> (Note: No English translation has ever rendered these two verses properly. All of them say that the Word was "with" God. Greek has two words for "with," <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I>meta </I>and <I>para</I>.</FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Greek1" > </FONT>Neither can be found in these verses in Greek. An entire doctrine, known as the <I>Logos</I> doctrine [from the Greek word<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Cyrillic6" > </FONT><I>Logos</I>, which means Word] has grown up around this error. John was not attempting to establish any doctrine in these verses, but was establishing instead the use of a "codeword" in an effort to avoid writing the Name of God [YHVH] in Greek, which Jewish teaching would not allow. Jewish teaching of the time would not even allow the Name to be written in Aramaic, which was a sister language to Hebrew and even used the same alphabet. Therefore, Aramaic translations of the Old Testament used a codeword in place of the Name. The Aramaic codeword was <I>Memra.</I> It means <I>Word.</I> In John's first two verses, he attempted to <I>define</I> his codeword so that his readers would understand that Word was being used to mean YHVH  [Jehovah or Yahweh]. It was not until the 14th verse that he actually used that information to make a doctrinal statement: "The Word [that is, Jehovah] became flesh and dwelt among us.")</div> <bR> <div> Acts 2:38 -- "Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, into the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."</div> <bR> <div> I Corinthians 6:9 -- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not deceive yourselves: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft ones (see note), nor those who have sex with men (see note)..."</div> <bR> <div> <U>Soft Ones:</U> This is an idiom, similar to our expressions "fat cats" and "stuffed shirts." Its meaning is similar to those, meaning wealthy people who do not care anything about those less well off. </div> <bR> <div> <U>Those who have sex with men:</U> It is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether Paul was speaking of men having sex with men, or women having sex with men. The majority of grammatical evidence we have suggests that he was speaking of <I>women</I> having sex with men, for example, prostitutes. However, whether he was referring to men, to women, or to both, the significant thing is that he was referring to sexual activity <I>outside of marriage.</I> History documents the fact that the Christian church, from its earliest years, was performing wedding ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Therefore, this verse could not be seen as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. The book <B>Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe</B> by the late John Boswell is recommended for more information on this subject.</div> <bR> <div> Colossians 1:19 -- "For all fulness was pleased to dwell in Him." (Note: This is another verse that all English Bibles, and many foreign versions, have deliberately mistranslated. All contain reference either to God or the Father. No such reference exists in the Greek. By altering this verse, the translators introduced a separation between Jesus and God which the Greek text would not allow. Cf. Col. 2:9)</div> <bR> <div> I Timothy 1:10 -- "...for patronizers of prostitutes, for those who have sex with men (see note under I Corinthians 6:9), for enslavers, for liars, for those who swear falsely, and if there is anything else contrary to sound teaching."</div> <bR> <div> I John 5:7 -- This verse, as it appears in the King James Version and many other Bibles worldwide, reads as follows: "For there are three that bear record in heaven: The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse does not exist in <B>any</B> ancient Greek manuscript. It first appears in the  Latin Vulgate, which was written centuries after John wrote this epistle.  It was written during a time when there was considerable controversy in the church over the nature of the Godhead. The organized church was well aware that they did not have scriptural backing for the position they had adopted. As Jerome translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into Latin, he, too, was aware of this, and sought to "remedy" the situation, not by pointing out the errors of the church position, but by altering scripture to make it agree with the church. Many modern English versions have left the verse out of the epistle, including it instead in a footnote with the explanation that it lacks scriptural authority. The King James translators had access to ancient Greek manuscripts, and they also knew the verse was not authentic, but they chose to include it anyway. Why? For the same reason Jerome wrote it in the first place: The church couldn't prove what it was believing.</div> <bR> <div> It is perhaps ironic that Jerome chose to place the verse in one of John's epistles, since the legitimate writings of John are diametrically opposed to the claims of Jerome's insertion. It was John who recorded the claim of Jesus that He was the God of the Old Testament, that is, the I AM [the YHVH] in John 8:58. It was also John who recorded the consternation of Jesus when Phillip asked to see the Father, "Have I been with you all this time, Phillip, and you still don't know <U>me</U>?" It was John who recorded that Jesus was the only visible form of the Father: "He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say then, show us the Father?" (John 14:7-9) It was John who found himself standing in heaven, and recorded that there was only one throne, and only One sitting on it. There was no mention of anyone else. (Rev. 4:2) He confirmed what Isaiah had seen in that same place. (Is. 6:l) John would never have countenanced such a statement as Jerome made in his added verse.</div> <bR> <div> Jude 7 -- "Just like Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them in the same way, surrendering themselves to fornication and pursuing other flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."</div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B> <A NAME="adam_and_eve_vs_adam_and_steve"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B>Adam and Eve</B></div> <div> <I><B>vs.</B></I></div> <div> <B>Adam and Steve</B></div> <bR> <div> <I> </I></div> <div>    <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Bordeaux Medium" ><I><B>O</B></I></FONT>ne of the more recent, and less logical, arguments against homosexuality today is the "Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve" argument. This argument suggests that because the first couple was heterosexual, then all future couples were also intended to be heterosexual. The flaw in this logic is apparent. If we follow the same logic through, we run into serious trouble: If the first two human beings were the pattern God intended, and any deviations from that pattern are contrary to the His will, then we must, following the same logic, also conclude that anyone who is not the same color as Adam and Eve (whatever color that may have been), or does not have the same color hair or eyes, would also be contrary to God's will. When we start talking about "right" skin color vs. "wrong" skin color, we all know we are on dangerous ground! </div> <div>    But let's look again at our first parents, Adam and Eve. A lot of what we have been taught about them, about the garden, about the fall, is based more upon tradition and medieval paintings than on scripture. (How many of us know that the Bible never said the fruit they ate was an apple?) A careful reading of the Hebrew text will reveal some suprising things about this couple to us.</div> <div>    The scripture tells us that God made man out of the dust of the ground. This first man is known to us as Adam, but Adam was not originally a proper name. Adam, more properly spelled with a small "a" is nothing more than the Hebrew word for human being. So God created adam (ah-DAHM), a human being, out of dust. The human being was placed in the garden of Eden. Also in the garden were the animals God created, and the human being gave them all names. The world order was different then: Because there was no sin, there was no death, and because there was no death, there was no need for any procreation. (If the animals had been reproducing in an enclosed garden, and nothing ever died, there would soon have been massive overpopulation.) The man also gave a name to himself, different from the word <I>adam</I> that God had called him. Adam called himself "enosh." This wasn't exactly a proper name either, but meant <I>man</I>. (In modern Hebrew, this word has become "ish.") Proper names were not needed due to the fact that there was only one of him, and only a limited number of animals. (If there was only one tiger, one tigress, one lion, one lioness, etc., they could be called by those names; other names were not needed.)</div> <div>    It was that pairing of all the other creatures that caused the man his first "problem." The lion had a lioness that he could recognize as being "like him." The tigress had the tiger, etc. But although there are many species that look like man, there was no other creature in the garden that "enosh" could recognize as being like him. In that respect, he was alone.</div> <div>    God said that it was not good for the adam to be alone (Gen. 2:18) and went on to say "I will make a help meet for him." (King James Version) But what the Hebrew says here, and the manner in which God made this "help," tell us volumes about the creature He was about to present to the man. The words translated as "help meet" are E-zer k'NEG-do. The word "ezer" means "helper." But there is more to it than that. You see, Hebrew has no neuter gender; every word is either masculine or feminine. Most nouns referring to people have both a masculine form and a feminine form, like "actor" and "actress" in English. Ezer is masculine. The feminine form would be <I>ezrah</I>. But God didn't say He would make an ezrah. He used the masculine form, ezer. The second half of this, k'negdo, means "as opposite him," that is, as a mirror image.</div> <div>    The way in which God created this helper is also significant. He could easily have taken some of the same dust from which He made the adam, and formed the helper out of it. Instead, we find that He took a rib from the man and made the woman from it. This is very significant. From what we now know about genetics, we can understand what God did: Although it sounds frightening to say it, the plain fact is, God cloned another "adam" from the rib. Because the new "adam" was made from the first adam's DNA, she was genetically identical to him in every way. (Was Eve also called Adam? In Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew tells us that "adam" was made both male and female. Genesis 5:1-2 tells us the same thing, and that <B>their</B> name was called "adam.") When God made this new person, the Hebrew text of Gen. 2:23 tells us that Adam called her "inshah," which is simply the feminine form of <I>enosh</I>. It means "woman." (Modern Hebrew: ishah) But we know from modern cloning experiments that a clone cannot have a different sex than the original. Therefore, the woman would have actually been no different from the man. (Remember that there was no need for reproduction yet.) The response of Adam when he met the woman for the first time confirms this. Think for a moment back to when you were a child, and saw another child of the opposite sex naked for the first time. Undoubtedly, you noticed "the difference." And yet, the difference between naked boys and naked girls is minimal when compared with adults, where the "difference" is much more pronounced. And yet, when Adam saw his new wife for the first time (and remember, he had never before seen a human female), he did not say <I>"What are those things?"</I> or <I>"Why is she missing the parts below?"</I> If there were a physical difference, he would have noticed it immediately. Instead, he recognized her as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." He knew that she was his counterpart, his mirror image. He gave her the feminine equivalent of his name for himself.</div> <div>    The need for procreation came about as a result of the fall. Because of sin, there was now death, and with expulsion from the garden, there was a whole world to fill. All of creation now needed to reproduce. Having children was part of the curse placed on the woman. Translating from the Hebrew, God told her, "I will surely multiply your sorrow and pregnancy: In sorrow you will bear children, and your desire will be toward your man (literally, toward your enosh), and he will rule over you." So we see that pregnancy, bringing forth children, was not part of her original state, but was part of the curse. So if childbearing were not part of her original design, then she would not originally have needed those parts of the body associated with bearing and nursing children. (It is also probable that her husband lacked parts associated with reproduction prior to the fall as well.) What is clear is this: Prior to their sin and expulsion, the man and woman were alike, equal, and appeared to have no physical differences from each other. Their DNA was identical. They were not heterosexual in the modern sense of the word, because there was no sexuality of any kind, nor any difference between sexes. In fact, the only difference evident in scripture before the fall was grammatical: They were both adam, but he was enosh, she was inshah. The difference served only to point out which "adam" was being spoken of. (For example, a lion and lioness: if they were originally physically identical, the different titles would serve only to indicate which big cat you were speaking of, and would not reflect any physical difference.)</div> <div>    After the fall, when the changes took place, which actually affected the whole world order, Adam gave his wife a new name. (These changes included diet: before the fall, no animal ate another.) When Adam realized that his wife would be bearing children, he gave her a name that reflected her new status: He called her Eve (Hebrew: CHAV-ah - "living"), because she would be the mother of all the living. So we see that prior to the fall, she was not a mother, she was not Eve, and physically, she was not even female as we understand the word. So one of the first consequences of sin that came into being was heterosexuality, required to replace those humans and animals who died. But in addition, homosexuality came into being, to prevent overpopulation in the world. A percentage of all animal species are homosexual. (source: "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl) Although it was sin that brought this into being, it was nevertheless God who designed the new order that resulted from our sin. His new order for creation included sexuality, absent from the garden, and included the orientations we know today.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <I>Rev. William H. Carey</I></div> <bR> <div> copyright 2000 Lighthouse Ministries</div> <div> revised 2002 for internet use</div> <bR> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="romans_126_27"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Romans 1:26-27</div> <div> <I>(direct translation from Greek text)</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>   Through this God gave them over to passions of dishonor; their women exchanged the natural use* into one against nature, likewise also the men left the natural use* of the female, burned in their lust for each other, males with males, committing an indecency, receiving in themselves the necessary reward for their error.</I></div> <bR> <div> *<I>use</I> may also be translated as <I>intercourse</I></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Manuscript" ><B>  </B></FONT><B> </B>The biggest mistake Christians make with Paul's epistle to the church at Rome is in their failure to comprehend Romans 1:7.  Paul's epistle was addressed to first century Rome, not twenty-first century America.  Does this mean the epistle doesn't apply to us?  Of course not; it certainly applies to every age and nation.  But what verse 7 reminds us is that when we read the epistle, we need to keep in mind that it was written to first century Rome, and applies first and foremost to the situations that were extant then.</div> <bR> <div>    What <I>was</I> going on in Rome?  The ancient Greek and Roman concept of what was normal and what was moral was quite different from twenty-first century America's.  Both ancient empires considered bisexuality to be the only normal orientation, and expected everyone to be bisexual.</div> <bR> <div>    The biggest problem with such a notion is that most people are not bisexual.  This meant that the majority of people had to disregard their sexual orientation in order to meet society's expectations.  In the verse above, it can be seen that Paul spoke about the Roman women changing the "natural" use or intercourse into that which was against "nature," and the Roman men leaving the "natural" intercourse with women.  Now, please understand what Paul meant by his use of the words "natural" and "nature."  He did not mean nature as "creation."  (In fact, homosexuality occurs "naturally" among all higher forms of animals.  Since it occurs in "nature," it cannot be considered "unnatural" or "against nature [as creation]." For more on this concept, we recommend the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl.)  Rather, Paul spoke of the Romans' <U>own</U> nature, that is, their sexual orientation.  Since the majority of people are heterosexual by orientation, it was of the Roman heterosexuals that Paul spoke.  The heterosexual women attempted to change their "natural" orientation into that which was against <U>their</U> <U>own</U> nature.  It was this attempted change Paul opposed, not the actual concept of Lesbian sexuality.</div> <bR> <div>    Likewise, heterosexual Roman men left the natural (i.e., according to <U>their</U> <U>own</U> nature) intercourse with women, and engaged in homosexual relations.  The resulting activity was "unseemly" and an "error" <I>only</I> because the men were heterosexual by orientation.  Again, it was their attempt to violate their own nature, that is, their attempt to alter the orientation God created them with, that Paul was addressing. Note also that Paul referred to this as an "error," a mistake, not a sin.</div> <bR> <div>    The bottom line is, God created each of us with a sexual orientation.  To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong.  The creation (us) does not have the right to "re-create" itself.</div> <bR> <div>    Some may think it unlikely that heterosexuals in the first century would force themselves to engage in homosexual relations simply because society expected them to.  And yet, today, in many parts of the world, homosexuals are forcing themselves to engage in heterosexual relations for the very same reason:  Society expects it.  But if it was wrong for heterosexuals in the first century to tamper with their sexual orientation, then it is equally wrong for homosexuals today to tamper with theirs.</div> <bR> <div>   </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Adapted from the class <I>Ministry in the 20th Century</I>, part of the Ministerial Training Course at Pentecostal Bible Institute, Ferndale, Michigan. </div> <div> Used by permission.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> © 1996 Lighthouse Ministries</div> <div> revised 2002 for internet use</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>