Posted by lm4771 on July 25, 19102 at 14:51:04:
In Reply to: the whole sodom nonense posted by xXx on July 21, 19102 at 00:39:40:
>>Thanks for the good explaination/argument on Sodom.
: "eternal fire"... oooh there is one of those bad translations again! A more accurate translation is "age-lasting fire" (symbolic fire of course) [there is no such thing as eternal punishment, or even hell for that matter, in the original Hebrew and Greek texts]
>>Hey, can you expound on this - there is no such thing at eternal punishment or hell in Hebrew or Greek?? And how is eternal different that age-lasting - and how do you come to the conclusion of symbolic? I'm just wondering...thanks.
: Contrary to Jo Dallas, no apocryphal work describes Sodom's sin as being homosexuality. The closest condemnation to it is 2nd Enoch's condemnation of "child corruption".
>>I wonder where Joe gets this from - does he site any apocryphal work? Seems to me I saw somewhere (can't remember where) some kind of connection with an extr-biblical reference to Sodom/homo. Maybe I'm wrong. How do you know if there are or not? Just wondering...thanks.
: Since I have already illustrated that Jude and Peter do not refer to homosexuality but to the rape of mortal women by angels, I think I should say more about "the number of men willing to join in the rape" (it seems like Dallas just contradicted himself there eh).
>>I'm dense - how did he contradict himself?