Thursday, September 12, 2013

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

by Mark Escalera

Those who hold to a secular, humanistic worldview have a penchant for being inconsistent. However, they are normally consistently inconsistent. Their answers have to change to suit their sinful lifestyles, and when the answers provide or offer tolerance to all (except for true believers), those answers have to change again just like the faulty science or research they want to appeal to in order to try and prove why they are the way they are.

One question that is often asked though is, “When did YOU choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?” They ask what they feel is the perfect question knowing that the answer given will quantify their own sin, grant them the right to be intolerant towards true Christians, and free themselves from the bonds of the laws of God.

So, let’s look at this question. When did I choose my sexual orientation? The question itself is wrong and is completely predicated on the removal of God from the equation.

If we are but a mere by-product of millions of years of evolution, then there would certainly be no “choices” in aspects of life such as sexual orientation and morality. Instead, my DNA or genes would influence who I was. It would then have an impact on my upbringing, environment, education, government, home life, etc., etc. The reason is because Darwinian evolution believes in the continued improvement and betterment of the species of animal known as man.

Thus, if I am merely an animal and one that is continuously evolving, I would be forced to accept that whether I was good or bad would be based on my DNA. This is why Hitler believed he was right to exterminate all peoples that he did not like. He was living out his beliefs.

It is this reason why Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood can operate with impunity in the wanton murder of millions of babies in the mother’s womb. They are acting out the logical conclusions of their belief. Evolution makes us better and abortion simply weeds out the weak and inconsequential in their minds.

Therefore, if I am but an evolutionary blip, then I cannot choose. I could no more choose who I want to have sex with than what morals I wanted to practice. In other words, if my evolutionary genes did not offer me the ability to make moral choices, I could kill with no conscience, or assault another person, and should have the freedom to do so.

After all, we do not kill animals that use their base instincts to kill or assault another animal, so why should we do this with human animals? There must be a level of consistency if we are going to apply evolutionary beliefs and still say that how I live or who I sleep with is not a choice.

However, there is another option. The option has a name and He is God. He alone is God and He will not give His glory to another. He demands worship and praise from all of creation, including man. This is the only God of the Bible.

This belief found in the pages of Scripture approaches the creation of man, not from the aspect of evolution, but from the aspect that God is Who He says He is and that He did what He says He did.
This belief is to be reflected in every aspect of every person who has ever lived. Sadly, sin entered the equation when Adam willfully and deliberately disobeyed God. When sin entered the world, it was passed to all of Adam & Eve’s children and their descendants.

Everything that God made in the beginning was good and with no imperfections. Even Satan was created as Lucifer and he was the highest of all the angelic beings. He worshiped at the foot of the throne of God and sang the praises of God. But pride entered his heart and he was cast from heaven.

He fell to earth and chose to deceive humanity into thinking they could be like God and know good and evil. Everything that God made Satan has tried over and over to make an evil counterpart. For example, God created marriage between one man and one woman until death parts them, but Satan quickly introduced polygamy, sex with children, bestiality, living together outside of marriage and homosexuality, and then persuaded mankind that these would be just as acceptable as long as they were simply committed to a “loving” relationship.

While DNA continues to grow weaker and more diluted from one generation to another, the one constant is that sin remains. It totally engulfs a person and makes them slaves to their depraved nature.

In one sense, man does not choose to make wise and good decisions because he is at enmity with God. Thus a person who practices sin is simply living out what is in their heart. A person can be just as sinful as a heterosexual as a person can be who is a homosexual. Satan seeks to persuade mankind that evolution is the answer and that God’s laws are not the moral basis of how the world is run.

However, there are morals and there are absolutes. God did not create but two genders – male and female. Not man, but God created the institution of marriage, thus He alone has the right to set the rules – one man and one woman for life. Not man, but God created government, thus He alone has the right to demand the rules be honored and obeyed.

In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion.

The “choice” that I have is whether I am going to honor the God who created me and live according to what He made me, OR, I can disobey, dishonor, and show my hatred for the Creator by living in a way that evidences my rebellion. Males are designed by God to be the counterpart to females. God did not create males to have sexual relationships with other males, nor did He create females to have sexual relationships with other females.

Further, God did not create man to live outside the boundary of His laws. This means that God established the morals. We do not kill because God said do not kill. We do not commit adultery because God said do not commit adultery. We do not steal because God said do not steal.

As a human being, I am created in the image of God. I am NOT a by-product of evolution or an evolutionary process. I am NOT free to live any way that I want in opposition to God without being willing to pay the price for my sin and folly. I am bound by my conscience that was placed in me by God. I am bound by His laws because God is the giver of all that pertains to morality. I cannot and would not have any morals apart from God giving them because the theory of evolution does not lean towards the production of morality. Morals cannot appear out of thin air, there must be an Originator.

So, to answer from a Biblical perspective – when did I choose my sexual orientation? I did not choose because God made me a male. This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female. God does not make mistakes. If a male wants to respond to another male, or a female to a female, or a human to an animal, they can do so, but not because God created them to do so, but because Satan who hates mankind, and hates God even more, has duped mankind into believing that we were born in a certain way and that we do not have to obey God.

Therefore, the real question that must be answered has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is about God. A person in the LGBT community can try to use this question to prove who they are, but they can only do so by appealing to evolution and not God.

The real questions that humanity faces are really about God. Is He real or is He but a figment of a deluded segment of mankind? If He is real, then His laws are just as real and we are bound to obey them or pay the price.

If He is but a figment, then I fear for the world because rape, assault, murder, and sexual perversions will continue and grow worse. Man left to himself will never be good because evolution does not permit man to be good. It requires him to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the mantra of the survival of the fittest.

So, here are the “choices” each reader has to make. Do you obey God or do you obey Satan? Do you believe you are here through random mutations and thus incapable of choosing either your morality or your sexual orientation, or do you believe that God created you in the very image of God?

To be consistent, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in God and believe in evolution. You cannot obey God and obey Satan. You cannot be a good moral person and be a person who holds to no absolute truths. You cannot be a follower of Christ and be a person who willfully breaks His laws.

If you realize in any way that you have hope in something that provides no hope, then I have some additional information that you might like to read.

Before time began, God purposed in Himself that He would provide a means of restoring fellowship with fallen man. He desires to have fellowship just as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden, but He cannot stand to look upon sin. In addition, He told Adam and Eve that if they sinned, they would surely die.

This created a dilemma. How could a holy God look upon sinful man and have that fellowship restored? The answer is so simple that even a child can come to the point where they believe in the truth of God’s Word.

When the time was right (Galatians 4:4), God the Son laid aside His glory and took upon Himself human flesh and became a man (Philippians 2). Coming to this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life. He did not sin, nor could He sin. John the Baptist saw Him coming across the hills of Judea and said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

This means that Jesus Christ was willing to fulfill the law in its entirety and to also be the substitutionary atonement for our sins. In order to be able to face God, this substitution means that something or somebody had to die in our place and atone for the wrath of God. So, Jesus Christ went to the cross of Calvary and there took our sin upon Himself and suffered the entire wrath of God so that we do not have to do so if we but confess and repent of our sin while placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:21 sums up the wonder of this message. “For our sake (humans) He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in Him (Jesus Christ – God the Son) we (humans) might become the righteousness of God.” What is a further wonder is that the Bible states clearly that WHOEVER wants to come to Christ may come. He will make you a brand new creation and you will no longer be a slave to your sin.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Leviticus 18 and 20

Dear Reader,

My friend, Jerry Sheppard, and I have been conversing for several months with a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken, who erroneously considers himself to be a Christian. Apparently Alex failed to read where Jesus says "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12) and where it testifies that "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we [are liars] and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6) and where it states that "Everyone who names the name of the Lord must depart from wickedness" (2 Timothy 2:19). Alex constantly and consistently laces his writings with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions.

Alex fails to "Study to show [himself] approved, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). Instead, Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual/homosexual advocating authors such as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, Dale Martin, and Justin R. Cannon (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and, like Alex, their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex delights in ripping verses and passages from their context and habitually neglects to apply the rules of hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation) and engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis. Alex talks a good game concerning exegesis, plagiarizing the definitions from authors who have spoken on the subject without giving them due credit, but constantly fails to actually practice responsible exegesis. We are now going to engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis in determining what Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 are dealing with.  

Alex attempts to tell us that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn homosexuality for "religious" purposes but not for "moral" purposes. He claims the context of these passages has to do with religious idolatry and cult prostitution. But is this a truthful assessment of the context?  No, it is not.

First, let us address Leviticus 18. You, the intelligent and educated reader, are wise enough to know that Alex's argument is both outrageously bogus and laughably fallacious. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that uncovering the nakedness of your father or your mother (18:7), of your father's wife (18:8), of your sister (18:9), of your son's daughter (18:10), of your father's wife's daughter (18:11), of your father's sister (18:12), of your mother's sister (18:13), of your father's brother (18:14), of your daughter-in-law (18:15), of your brother's wife (18:16), or any other blood relatives (18:17) has anything to do with cult prostitution? Alex would do well to try and retain the context. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that having intimacy with a woman during her menstrual cycle (18:19) or having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20) has anything to do with cult prostitution? The only verse that has anything to do with the practices of religious idolatry is verse 21, which is borne out through the entirety of Scripture. The heathen nations would sacrifice their children to their various gods. Nothing else in this chapter has to do with idolatrous practices, nor with cult prostitution.

By what great exegetical miracle does Alex expect to convince us that having sex with animals was religious idolatry (18:23)? People were doing it when God decided to flood the world, and they are doing it today without the slightest trace of religion attached to it. The passage does not connect it with idolatrous practice whatsoever. It condemns it entirely, just as it does with homosexual behaviour (18:22). Honestly, Alex needs to go back to school and educate himself as to what "context" actually is. If he paid close attention to verse 21, he would notice that "nor shall you profane the name of your God" has nothing to do with practices of religious idolatry. This is the third commandment reiterated. It is not connected with the first half of verse 21. Alex would do well to be reminded that the chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek. He should try and remember that when considering what context truly is and what it consists of.

Second, let us address Leviticus 20. If Alex paid attention to the context, he would see that the verses speaking of the practices of religious idolatry again address child sacrifice (20:2-5). None of the rest of this chapter has anything to do with religious idolatry. A person could try and argue that verse 6 does, but he/she would be in error. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that cursing one's father or mother (20:9), or committing adultery with another man's wife (20:10), or lying with one's father's wife (20:11), or lying with one's daughter-in-law (20:12), or marrying a woman and her mother (20:14), or having sex with an animal (20:15-16), or discovering one's sister's nakedness (20:17), or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18), etc., etc., etc., has anything to do with religious idolatry? Alex is reaching yet again, as all the evidence is against him. Let's observe further:

Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואת‾וכר לא תשׁכּב משׁבּבי אשׁה תוצבההוא"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν"
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est."

Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכּב את‾וכר משׁבּבי אשׁה תּוצבה צשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו"
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos."

וכר = "a male, man, mankind (as opposed to womankind)"
אישׁ = "man, male, husband"
אשׁה = "woman, female, wife"
ישׁכּב ,תשׁכּב = "a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)"
משׁבּבי = "a bed; abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse"
תּוצבה ,תוצבה = "properly, something disgusting (morally): detestable; abomination"
αρσενος = “male, man, husband”
γυναικος = “female, woman, wife”
κοιτην = “a bed; spoken of the marriage bed, metaphorically for marriage (Heb. 13:4)”
κοιμηθη, κοιμηθηση = “to sleep”
βδελυγμα = “that which is detestable; abomination”

Notice the word "coitu" in Latin for both verses? It means "coupling;" i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse. In Leviticus 22:13, we also have the word "dormierit," which means "sleeps." What do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual." The immediate surrounding context around these verses is in regard to immoralities and vile behaviours that are extremely prohibited by God , as we have seen above, and are labeled as detestable abominations. The words, grammar, and context of these passages are as crystal clear as the sun is bright. The person who denies this is not being honest. The description in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English (as well as every other language) is that of homosexuality.

Alex tries to argue that the word αρσενοκοιτες did not exist in the Roman world outside Paul’s usage of it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. However, this is false. While it may not have been used as a compound word the way Paul used it, nevertheless the above two passages make use of both root words: αρσεν (male) and κοιτε (bed). Leviticus 22:13 uses them side-by-side. We know that there is nothing in these passages about an actual, literal bed, so why did the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint use the word κοιτε? Well, κοιτε is used in Hebrews 13:4 to speak of the marriage bed, metaphorically of marriage itself. The fact both words are used in these passages illustrates that, while perhaps not compounded, the term was used in other literature (and prior to Paul’s usage thereof). Also, it shows us that Paul had these passages in mind when he penned 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The Greek translation of these verses weighs in heavily against the false arguments raised by Alex.

You see, dear Reader, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have nothing to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution. Alex is reading this into the text, which is called eisegesis. Everything in these chapters are prohibitions set by God. The behaviour of homosexuality is prohibited by God and condemned as an abominable perversion. So as you can see, dear Reader, Alex manipulates, maligns, and twists these passages to say what he wants them to say, when a clear study of the context reveals otherwise.

It does not matter whether it is homosexual gang rape, homosexual prostitution, pederasty; whether there is a significant age difference or the ages are relatively the same; whether it is a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or it is a "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership;" or whatever other brush one wants to attempt to paint the picture with, homosexuality is still homosexuality. Homosexuality is a moral perversion and bankruptcy of human nature and sexuality that is condemned by God because it is unnatural and goes against His created order and what is to be expected. All nature, biology, science, and logic prove that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion of both human and sexual nature. There is no issue regarding homosexuals who want to marry because such a union does not constitute marriage and it never will. A marriage constitute one man and one woman. Period.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality

Dear Readers,

The title of this blog entry is misleading. I titled it this way on purpose because of a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken that my friend Jerry and I have been conversing with; a man who erroneously considers himself to be a Christian. Alex makes this claim himself (that the biblical world did not have a word for homosexuality), but the reality is quite the opposite of what he wishes were true. Alex constantly and consistently laces his e-mails, blog articles, and responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions. His dealing with this issue is no different.

Alex argues that the biblical world did not have a word for homosexuality. Part of his simplistic argument is based on the fact that "The word 'homosexual' did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946." "But, we have to acknowledge that you don't translate a word from Hebrew and Greek into the English if there is no English equivalent. So, using the term "homosexual" in the English Bible could not have occurred until after the word had entered the English vocabulary."1 Alex's argument is simplistic for the very fact that the word "homosexual" is an English word, so obviously it would not have existed during biblical times. Alex is committing an Exegetical Fallacy by demanding the Bible spell out in modern words—"h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y"—its condemnation of homosexuality. All any intelligent and educated reader has to do is pay attention to what Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; and Romans 1:26-27 say and they will easily conclude that the Bible is condemning homosexuality. The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." A child reading these passages would conclude that the Bible is condemning homosexuality, also. Apparently Alex is not as wise as a child. The old English word used long before the word homosexual came into existence was the word "bugger."

Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
bugger n. slang a person who commits buggery.
buggery n. 1 anal intercourse. 2 bestiality.
sodomite n. a person who engages in sodomy.
sodomy n. anal intercourse performed between two males or a male and a female.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
1bugger n. sodomite.
2bugger vt. to commit sodomy with.
buggery n. sodomy.
sodomite n. one who practices sodomy.
sodomy n. [the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11] 1 copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal. 2 anal copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Prior to this word being used, from the 6th century A.D. onward, homosexuals were referred to as "Sodomites," because they committed the same sin that Sodom was guilty of committing. The word "Sodomites" appears in the 3rd century B.C. translation of the Hebrew manuscripts into Greek, the Septuagint. So do not let anyone try to tell you that such a word did not exist in biblical times. They would be wrong.

Alex thinks that the biblical world did not have a word for homosexuals, but he is wrong on two accounts. First, a description is necessarily the same as the word, so whether a specific word exists or not is irrelative to the facts and evidence of reality. These three passages spell it out clearly and concisely:
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Romans 1:26-27)
What are these passages describing? For the honest and truthful individual, he/she will have to admit they are describing homosexuality. Second, we have the compound Greek word arsenokoitai (αρσενοκοιται) that Paul uses in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which comes from the use of their root words found side-by-side in the Septuagint in the Holiness Code of Leviticus 20:13 (both words also appear in Leviticus 18:22, though not side-by-side). So you see, the biblical world did have definitions for homosexuals, whether by words or by descriptions. Alex Haiken is merely being willfully deceitful because the homosexual agenda is at stake. He knows he has no foundation, no arguments, nothing to back him up. The facts and evidence are against him. He argues out of stubborn pride, even though he knows he has lost the battle.

Why no one in the biblical world had a word for homosexuality? Because a description thereof was just as good as a word. However, the evidence shows that they had both words and descriptions. So claiming they did not have such words is incorrect, and a very futile argument. But such is expected from a man who lies through his teeth about what passages of the Bible truly say. The next time someone claims no Bible prior to 1946 had the word "homosexual" in it, or that they even spoke of homosexuality, take them on a little education trip through older versions of the Bible and translations in other languages:
THE WYCLIFF BIBLE (1380):
Whether ye witen not, that wickid men schulen not welde the kyngdom of God? Nyle ye erre; nethir letchours, nether men that seruen mawmetis, nether auouteris, nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God.
MODERN ENGLISH:
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.

Letchery: offensive sexual desire; lustfulness
THE TYNDALE BIBLE (1530):
Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde, nether theves nether the coveteous nether dronkardes nether cursed speakers nether pillers shall inheret the kyngdome of God.

THE MATTHEWS BIBLE (1537):
Do ye not remember how that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived. For neither fornicators, neither worshippers of images, neither whoremongers, neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind, neither thieves, neither the covetous, neither drunkards, neither cursed speakers, neither pillers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GENEVA BIBLE (1560):
Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shal not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: nether fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor watons, nor bouggerers, nor theues, nor couetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extorcioners, shal inherite the kingdome of God.

GENEVA BIBLE (1599):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (♣) wantons, nor (♠) buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(♣) Immoral or unchaste, lewd.
(♠) Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male.)
KJV (1611):
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NASB (1971):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor [the] covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NIV (1978):
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NKJV (1979):
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

ESV (2001):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (*), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(*) The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts
LATIN BIBLE (VULGATE):
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt
TRANSLATION:
Do ye not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God is not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor liers with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

GERMAN BIBLE (Luther 1534):
Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die Lästerer noch die Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Let not seduce you! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers [of themselves with mankind], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor are revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 1951):
Wisset ihr denn nicht, daß Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Irret euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 2000):
Wisst ihr denn nicht, dass Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht erben werden? Irrt euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes erben.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God is not to be? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (NGU):
Muss ich euch daran erinnern, dass die, die Unrecht tun, keinen Anteil am Reich Gottes bekommen werden, dem Erbe, das Gott für uns bereithält? Macht euch nichts vor: Keiner, der ein unmoralisches Leben führt, Götzen anbetet, die Ehe bricht, homosexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, stiehlt, geldgierig ist, trinkt, Verleumdungen verbreitet oder andere beraubt, wird an Gottes Reich teilhaben.
TRANSLATION:
Must I remind you that those who do wrong, no share in the kingdom of God will receive, the inheritance that God has for us? Never mind before: No one who leads an immoral life, idol worship, adultery, arrives homosexual relationships, stealing, being greedy, drinking, or other spreads slander is robbed, participate in God's kingdom.

GERMAN BIBLE (HOF):
Habt ihr vergessen, dass für Menschen, die Unrecht tun, in Gottes neuer Welt kein Platz sein wird? Täuscht euch nicht: Wer verbotene sexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, andere Götter anbetet, die Ehe bricht, wer sich von seinen Begierden treiben lässt und homosexuell verkehrt, wird nicht in Gottes neue Welt kommen; auch kein Dieb, kein Ausbeuter, kein Trinker, kein Gotteslästerer oder Räuber.
TRANSLATION:
Did you forget that for people who do wrong will be no place in God's new world? Do not be deceived: those who take illicit sexual relationships, worshiping other gods, adultery, who can be driven by his desires and perverted homosexual will not come into God's new world, nor a thief, not a sweatshop, not a drinker, not a blasphemer or robbers.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1960):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No erréis; ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1995):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engañéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVA):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no poseerán el reino de Dios? No erréis, que ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, Ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los robadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVC):
¿Acaso no saben que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No se equivoquen: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se acuestan con hombres, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los malhablados, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor those who lie with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor foul-mouthed, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (Traducción en lenguaje actual):
No se dejen engañar. Ustedes bien saben que los que hacen lo malo no participarán en el reino de Dios. Me refiero a los que tienen relaciones sexuales prohibidas, a los que adoran a los ídolos, a los que son infieles en el matrimonio, a los afeminados, a los hombres que tienen relaciones sexuales con otros hombres, a los ladrones, a los que siempre quieren más de lo que tienen, a los borrachos, a los que hablan mal de los demás, y a los tramposos. Ninguno de ellos participará del reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do not be fooled. You well know that wrongdoers will not participate in the kingdom of God. I mean those who have sex prohibited, those who worship idols, who are unfaithful in marriage, to effeminate, to men who have sex with men, to thieves, who always want more than they have, to drunkards, to those who speak ill of others, and to cheats. Neither of them will participate in the kingdom of God.

FRENCH BIBLE (LOUIS SEGOND):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront point le royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni les impudiques, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les efféminés, ni les infâmes, ni les voleurs, ni les cupides, ni les ivrognes, ni les outrageux, ni les ravisseurs, n'hériteront le royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

FRENCH BIBLE (La Bible du Semeur):
Ne savez-vous pas que ceux qui pratiquent l'injustice n'auront aucune part au *royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: il n'y aura point de part dans l'héritage de ce royaume pour les débauchés, les idolâtres, les adultères, les pervers ou les homosexuels, ni pour les voleurs, les avares, pas plus que pour les ivrognes, les calomniateurs ou les malhonnêtes.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that those who practice injustice will have no part in the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: there will be no share in the inheritance of the kingdom for fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, perverts or homosexuals, nor thieves, covetous, nor for drunkards, slanderers or dishonest.

FRENCH BIBLE (SEGOND 21):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront pas du royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni ceux qui vivent dans l’immoralité sexuelle, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les travestis, ni les homosexuels, ni les voleurs, ni les hommes toujours désireux de posséder plus, ni les ivrognes, ni les calomniateurs, ni les exploiteurs n'hériteront du royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither those who live in sexual immorality, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor transvestites, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the men still want to have more, nor drunkards, nor slanderers nor exploiters will not inherit the kingdom of God.

RUSSIAN BIBLE:
Или не знаете, что неправедные Царства Божия не наследуют? Не обманывайтесь: ни блудники, ни идолослужители, ни прелюбодеи, ни малакии, ни мужеложники, ни воры, ни лихоимцы, ни пьяницы, ни злоречивые, ни хищники--Царства Божия не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners - inherit the kingdom of God.

RUSSIAN BIBLE (SZ):
Разве вы не знаете, что неправедные не наследуют Царства Божьего? Смотрите, чтобы вам не обмануться. Никакие развратники, никакие идолопоклонники, нарушители супружеской верности, пассивные и активные гомосексуалисты-мужчины, воры, корыстолюбцы или пьяницы, клеветники или мошенники Царства Божьего не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? See that you are not deceived. No sexually immoral, idolaters, no, adulterers, passive and active homosexual men, thieves, drunkards, or covetous, slanderers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


1 http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946.

Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?

Dear Reader,

My friend, Jerry Sheppard, and I have been conversing for several months with a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken, who erroneously considers himself to be a Christian. Apparently Alex failed to read where Jesus says "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12) and where it testifies that "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we [are liars] and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6) and where it states that "Everyone who names the name of the Lord must depart from wickedness" (2 Timothy 2:19). Alex constantly and consistently laces his writings with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions.

Alex fails to "Study to show [himself] approved, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). Instead, Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual/homosexual advocating authors such as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, Dale Martin, and Justin R. Cannon (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and, like Alex, their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex delights in ripping verses and passages from their context and habitually neglects to apply the rules of hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation) and engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis. Alex talks a good game concerning exegesis, plagiarizing the definitions from authors who have spoken on the subject without giving them due credit, but constantly fails to actually practice responsible exegesis. We are now going to engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis in determining what Romans 1:26-27 is dealing with.

Romans 1:26-27 says, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
In the Greek, it reads: "Δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτος ο Θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες, αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας, εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους, αρσενες εν αρσεσι την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι, και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες."

θηλειαι = "female, woman"
αρσενες, αρσεσι = "male, man"
χρησιν = "employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body)"
ορεξει = "excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after: lust"
αρσενες εν αρσεσι = "men with men, i.e. homosexuals"
ασχημοσυνην = "an indecency; by implication, the pudenda: shame"

Xρησιν clearly delineates sexual intercourse. "Women [exchanging] the natural function" speaks of women abandoning natural sexual intercourse for woman-on-woman perversion. This fact can be seen from three evidences: (1) "in the same way" or "likewise", this lets us know there is a comparison taking place; (2) "natural function of the woman", this lets us know that the former was speaking of women abandoning the natural function of the man; and (3) "men with men", this lets us know that women with women is in view. It clearly states these "men abandoned the natural function" of sexual intercourse, "[burning] in their [lust] toward one another". Lust (ορεξει) is sexual desire of the mind. The fact it states αρσενες εν αρσεσι puts the nail in the coffin on the fact it is speaking of man-on-man perversion.

Now, the context is quite clear. "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them" (Rom. 1:24). Then we receive the description of how they were dishonouring their bodies amongst themselves in their lusts (Rom. 1:26-27), which ends stating the fact that they "[receive] in their own persons the due penalty of their error". The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." The Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God says what He means and means what He says." What are the words saying? What are the words describing?

In his commentary on Romans 1:26-27, St. John Chrysostom wrote:
"ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical." (Emphasis mine.)
Looking at one of the words translated "natural" in this passage, Alex Haiken performs what is called "collapsing context" by trying to relate the passage to Romans 11:24 merely because they share a similar word. By doing so, he makes an argument that if homosexuality is unnatural, so is our salvation. His argument is both right (unknowingly) and wrong, as we shall discover. Let us examine both passages:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] function for that which is unnatural [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις], and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27

"For if you were cut off from what is by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [pre2596; kata/an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] branches be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:24
5446 phusikos, φυσικος; adjective. Natural, as established by God in nature.
5449 phusis, φυσις; anarthrous noun. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition.

Alex Haiken knows nothing of the Greek language, so you will have to excuse his ignorance and his typical assumptions and conclusions drawn from assumptions. As we have already established, Alex argues that if homosexuality is unnatural, so too is our salvation. The problem is, he does not seem to realize that there are two words translated as "natural" in Romans 1:26-27. The Greek word he is attempting to tell us appears in both passages, based on his argument, does not. The Greek word that does appear in both passages has nothing to do with what is unnatural, but with nature; natural birth or condition, natural disposition.

Alex was right about one thing (although unwittingly so), and that was that our salvation is not natural to us. It is not in accordance to our birth condition and natural disposition. We are born in sin and are deservedly heading toward hell. We do not deserve salvation.

Homosexuality is unnatural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] because it exchanges what was established by God in nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] for that which is against [pre3844] nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις]. Notice that salvation is not unnatural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος], but is not our natural [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] disposition. We are by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), just as every man and woman are by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual and act out homosexual activities.

As you can see, Paul's "rantings," as Alex puts it, were quite clear. The fact is, Alex cannot make up his mind what he wants to believe Paul is speaking about in Romans 1:26-27. In one e-mail he attempted to tell me it spoke of pederasty. In a more recent response, he attempts to tell me it spoke of cult prostitution. Alex is attempting to latch onto any excuse just so he does not have to face the facts and evidence of what this passage is truly saying. Alex could learn a thing or two about honest, responsible, solid biblical exegesis.

It does not matter whether it is homosexual gang rape, homosexual prostitution, pederasty; whether there is a significant age difference or the ages are relatively the same; whether it is a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or it is a "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership;" or whatever other brush one wants to attempt to paint the picture with, homosexuality is still homosexuality. Homosexuality is a moral perversion and bankruptcy of human nature and sexuality that is condemned by God because it is unnatural and goes against His created order and what is to be expected. All nature, biology, science, and logic prove that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion of both human and sexual nature. There is no issue regarding homosexuals who want to marry because such a union does not constitute marriage and it never will. A marriage constitutes one man and one woman. Period.

Genesis 19: What the Bible Really Says Were the Sins of Sodom

Dear Readers,

My friend, Jerry Sheppard, and I have been conversing for several months with a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken, who erroneously considers himself to be a Christian. Apparently Alex failed to read where Jesus says "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12) and where it testifies that "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we [are liars] and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6) and where it states that "Everyone who names the name of the Lord must depart from wickedness" (2 Timothy 2:19). Alex constantly and consistently laces his writings with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions.

Alex fails to "Study to show [himself] approved, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). Instead, Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual/homosexual advocating authors such as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, Dale Martin, and Justin R. Cannon (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and, like Alex, their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex delights in ripping verses and passages from their context and habitually neglects to apply the rules of hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation) and engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis. Alex talks a good game concerning exegesis, plagiarizing the definitions from authors who have spoken on the subject without giving them due credit, but constantly fails to actually practice responsible exegesis. We are now going to engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis in determining what Genesis 19 is dealing with.
"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young (נצר) and old (זקן), all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand aside.' Furthermore, they said, 'This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.' So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door." (Genesis 19:4-9)
From the underlined words we can see how every argument Alex makes is completely and utterly dismantled and destroyed. Regarding the theory that pederasty is in view, the phrase "both young and old" rips it to shreds. Both young men and old men wanted to have sexual relations with the men (not boys) being sheltered by Lot. These men are told "do not act so wickedly," to which they accuse Lot of being their judge. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. If hospitality and friendliness were in view here, how would anyone rightly call it wickedness, and why would the people accuse that person of being their judge? Furthermore, why would God destroy a city or nation for wanting to be hospitable and friendly? This theory is asinine and ludicrous. Their actions are described as being foolish and vile. The fact that women were offered to these men and they declined, wanting the men instead, demonstrates powerfully the reality that they wanted to have sexual relations with the men. Individuals who try and tell you otherwise are bankrupt morally, mentally, spiritually, and intellectually.

Alex has even attempted to argue that the Hebrew word for "men" in Genesis 19:4 is inclusive of women, an argument he obviously received from Justin R. Cannon: "If you look at the original Hebrew text, and even early Greek translations, the word translated into English as 'men' can be inclusive of the women as well."1 Therefore, he urges, the men and women of the city wanted to "gang rape" the two angels. However, this is false. The first flaw in his argument is with the Hebrew word אנושׁ (enowsh). It is not inclusive of women. It is a masculine noun meaning man. The plural of this word often serves for the plural of אישׁ (iysh), which "does not indicate humankind but the male gender in particular."2 The second flaw in his argument is that the word used for the "men" of the city is also the same word used when demanding Lot to bring out the "men" (v.5). If it is inclusive of women, when Lot offered his daughters, why did they not take advantage of them? The third flaw in his argument is with the Greek word ανηρ in the Septuagint. It is not inclusive of women. This is a masculine noun meaning man or husband. As you can see, Alex is lying through his teeth yet again, trying to forge support for his perverse behaviour.

The Bible informs us that even after they were all struck with blindness, the men of the city still continued to grope for the door, wearing themselves out; exhausting themselves. Why? When you are blind, you cannot participate in gang rape because you cannot see who it is you might be raping, and these men were after Lot's guests. However, if you are blind, you can still engage in sexual activity. Any sane person in their right mind immediately struck with blindness would stop what they were doing because the realization that they were now blind would have kicked in. God goes so far as to inform us that even after they were blinded, these men did not stop. Homosexuals today bear the same character, attacking churches and doing things to its members that no rational human being would ever do to another human being. Homosexuality makes people irrational in their thoughts and in their behaviour.

What is even more interesting about the Genesis 19 passage in the Septuagint is the usage of the word σοδομιται in verse 4. Alex insists that there is no Greek word for "sodomites", yet, here it is; and it is plural masculine. The Greek word for Sodom is Σοδομα. Σοδομιται refers to the inhabitants of Sodom, i.e., the Sodomites. This is precisely what the word meant in biblical times. The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century A.D. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. Nevertheless, despite this word not taking on its primarily sexual meaning until later, Christians earlier than Justinian are also seen to denounce same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) and Methodius of Olympus (260-312 A.D.) attributed homosexual relations to Sodom, as did St. Augustine and many others. Thus, "sodomites" refers to homosexuals. Here are some quotes:
"The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind." —Philo (Emphasis mine.)

"As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’ wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment." —Flavius Josephus (Emphasis mine.)

"But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination." —Methodius (Emphasis mine.)

"They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion." —St. Basil (Emphasis mine.)

"Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust." —St. Augustine (Emphasis mine.)
Even the Qu'ran, written around 632 A.D., clearly understood the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 to be that of homosexuality. Surah 7:80-81 reads: "We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Surah 26:165-166 reads: "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" Surah 29:28-29 reads: "And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: 'Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?—and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?' But his people gave no answer but this: they said: 'Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth.'" Surah 11:77-79 reveals their understanding of Genesis 19: "When Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless (to protect) them. He said: 'This is a distressful day.' And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: 'O my people! here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with disgrace about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?' They said: 'Well dost thou know we have no need of thy daughters: indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!'"

Now, Alex Haiken is keen on turning to Ezekiel 16:49 in order to attempt to tell us what the sins of Sodom supposedly were: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." This is where Alex stops because of his pretext, "an effort or strategy intended to conceal something." Alex stops here with his quotation because he is dishonest and willfully deceitful. He is the son of his father, the devil, and so his tactics should not be surprising in the least. When Satan was tempting Jesus, he stopped his quotation of Scripture short of the verse that spoke of his own destruction. Alex does the same thing. If we continue with our quotation of Scripture, Ezekiel 16:50 reads, "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." The Hebrew word translated "abominations" here is to'ebah (תועבה), the very same term used to describe homosexual activities/relationships in the holiness code (Leviticus 20:13). To'ebah properly refers to something morally disgusting.

Alex Haiken attempts to twist and malign Ezekiel 16:49 in order to garner support for his homosexual behaviour. He hopes to conceal the truth of what the Bible really says were the sins of Sodom. However, the Bible spells it out for us on a number of occasions. Isaiah 3:9 informs us of how Sodom made shameless proclamation of their sin (the same shameless proclamation that homosexuals demonstrate today): "The expression of their faces bears witness against them, and they display their sin like Sodom; they do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves." 2 Peter 2:6-8 also inform us as to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: "and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)" Likewise, so also does Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

As you can see, the Bible does indeed tell us what the sins of Sodom really were. In fact, the whole of history backs up this factual understanding of the passage. Alex Haiken, on the other hand, attempts to willfully deceive those who would give any credence to his venomous lies.

It does not matter whether it is homosexual gang rape, homosexual prostitution, pederasty; whether there is a significant age difference or the ages are relatively the same; whether it is a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or it is a "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership;" or whatever other brush one wants to attempt to paint the picture with, homosexuality is still homosexuality. Homosexuality is a moral perversion and bankruptcy of human nature and sexuality that is condemned by God because it is unnatural and goes against His created order and what is to be expected. All nature, biology, science, and logic prove that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion of both human and sexual nature. There is no issue regarding homosexuals who want to marry because such a union does not constitute marriage and it never will. A marriage constitutes one man and one woman. Period.


1 Justin R. Cannon, The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality, 12.
2 Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 46 (see 75-76).

Exegesis: Not For the Faint of Heart

Dear Reader,

 My friend Jerry and I have been conversing with a homosexual named Alex Haiken who mistakenly thinks himself to be a Christian. He constantly and consistently laces his e-mails, blog articles, and responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations. Alex relies on the unscholarly works of such homosexual/homosexual supporting authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, and Dale Martin (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and their works have been exposed to be filled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex continually fails to practice honest and responsible hermeneutics and exegesis, habitually ripping texts from their context and attempting to interpret them based on our day and age and what is or is not acceptable in and by our societies. Let us take a moment to educate Alex on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

The word "exegesis" comes from the Greek verb εξηγησις (from εξηγεισθαι "to lead out"), which means "to draw out." Simply put, exegesis is about drawing out from the text the true meaning of a biblical verse or passage. Exegesis, then, is an investigation. It attempts to determine the historical, cultural, and geographical context within which a particular verse exists. The questions we always have to be asking are: Who is doing the speaking? Who is being spoken to? What is being said? What is going on here? When observing the external context, proper exegesis examines the surrounding verses (immediate context), the surrounding chapters (sectional context), and other passages (canonical context). It lets the Bible speak for and interpret itself. Today's reader must try to enter the world of the biblical author and seek to understand what the author was saying. If we fail to pay attention to the world in which the Bible was written, we will simply read biblical texts and infuse them with meaning from our social world and circumstances. "The interpreter must come to the Bible as open as possible, without any theological bias or presuppositions."1 Exegesis utilizes "hermeneutics," which means "the art and science of biblical interpretation."

In contrast to this, what many do instead is what some theologians refer to as "front-loading;" i.e., they read their own personal, political, or ideological beliefs back into the Bible instead of reading out from the Bible what the original authors were saying. This process of reading one's own presuppositions, agendas, biases, and/or ideas into the interpretation of the Bible is called "eisegesis," from the Greek εις, which means "into." "It is the interpreter’s job to represent the text, "not the prejudices, feelings, judgments, or concerns of the exegete. To indulge in the latter is to engage in eisegesis, 'a reading into' a text what the reader wants it to say.""2 Eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his/her interpretation into and onto the text. There is only ever one interpretation to a text; but there may be many applications to a text.

Personal experience does not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. Personal feelings and opinions do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. Presumptions, inferences, assumptions, and conclusions drawn from assumptions do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. Personal presuppositions, prejudices, agendas, biases, and/or ideas do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. The practices and acceptances of our day and age do not interpret or determine what the Word of God says. All of this is to engage in eisegesis. Eisegesis is at best unwise, and at worst extremely dangerous.

Exegesis and eisegesis are conflicting approaches to interpreting the Bible. Why? Exegesis is reading out from the Bible what the original authors were saying. Eisegesis is reading into the Bible one's own ideas or prejudices. Exegesis is about drawing out the true meaning of a Bible passage. Eisegesis is about putting into the text something never intended by the author. Exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. The Bible gives us a clear example of exegesis: "They read from the book...translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading" (Neh. 8:8). Exegesis, however, is not an easy task and is not for the faint of heart. Like most things of value, it requires some work on our part.

Alex Haiken would do well to apply himself and to do some honest and in depth research, but the prerequisite to doing proper biblical study is the indwelling Holy Spirit. The spiritually dead are unable to discern spiritual truths because they do not have the Spirit. Alex struggles with the truth because he is not a regenerate born-again believer. Alex claims to be a Christian, embracing his homosexual sin, but has neglected to actually get saved. He fails to realize that salvation calls for repentance. He is among those who call on Jesus' name but continue to work deeds of lawlessness (Matt. 7:21-23). 1 John 3:4-10 informs us that anyone who embraces their sin and makes a habitual practice thereof is not a Christian and does not belong to God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; and Ephesians 5:5 let us know that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. I keep telling Alex that today is the day of salvation and that he had better repent or he will likewise perish. Everybody please pray for the salvation of Alex's soul. Thank you!


1 Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, 169.
2 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology, 45.