Hardly anyone is standing against the homosexual agenda--not the entertainment media, not the news media, not even advice columnists. On February 27th of this year Ann Landers published a letter from the parents of a 20-year-old boy who is "confused about his gender identity. He told us that since high school he has had romantic fantasies about guys, not girls. He wants to see a counselor and become straight" (Dallas Morning News 2C).

Rather than encourage the young man in the direction of his desire, Ann replied that he was "unquestionably homosexual. Counseling will not 'straighten him around.'" Her advice was to see a counselor who would help him ACCEPT HIS HOMOSEXUALITY!! How pitiful. Instead of affirming that several people who have engaged in homosexual acts have overcome those desires and become normal, she just implied that it was impossible to be any different. And so far as we know, he was not even a practicing homosexual.

Christians and those professing to be such are the only ones with enough conviction to change things. Everyone else, it seems, is willing to throw in the towel. Only those who respect Truth can help homosexuals repent of their sins.

Now an attempt has been made to explain away the Scriptures. A five-page document, which perverts the Scriptures in an attempt to justify homosexuality, is available on the Internet. This document needs to be answered.

We have already seen how these perverters of the Word of God tried to prejudice their case; now we want to examine their "interpretation" of Gensis 19:1-25. "The Hebrew word for know in this case, yadha, usually means 'have thorough knowledge of.' It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse."

It would be difficult to imagine a more absurd argument. While it is true that this Hebrew word has as many variations of meaning as its English equivalent does, it is completely erroneous to suggest that it refers to sexual intercourse only rarely. Following are a few of the "rare occasions" in Genesis: "Adam knew his wife Eve" (4:1 and 4: 25); "Cain knew his wife" (4:17); Jacob "knew" Tamar again no more (38:26). Counting the passage in 19:5, there are five instances of this usage in the book of Genesis alone, which hardly qualifies as being all that rare.

What about the idea that these Sodomites were just checking the visitors' credentials? First of all, where is the passage where the word know is used in such a way? Second, is such an idea compatible with the text? Lot begged the men not to act so wickedly (19:7); what is so evil about checking credentials? And why would Lot offer his two virgin daughters to a mob of rowdy credential checkers (19:8)? These bureaucrats were really dedicated to their job; even when struck blind, they wearied themselves trying to find the door just to be certain these strangers had the proper credentials (19:11)!!

Not content with such a preposterous position, the authors of this "defense" next attempt to call into question the homosexual "interpretation." "First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident." True, but such does not imply that this was the very first time the thought ever occurred to them. Are we to believe that the sight of these two visitors caused all of the men of the city to become homosexuals on the spot?

"Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual." This is an allegation that remains unprovable. This culture was given over totally to licentiousness. They were not strictly homosexual since they apparently had wives and children. And who knows how many other similar cultures may have been destroyed with no trace of their past? If it were not for the Bible, would we even know about Sodom? How many of the cultures before the flood were just like them (Gen. 6:5)? The authors have affirmed what they can not prove.

"Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests." This community was bisexual, at least as far as it was necessary to procreate. But they much preferred males since they refused the young women, thus showing their deep-seated love of perversion.

"Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters?" The fact that Lot offered his daughters proves the issue was sexual. Apparently, we are still being asked to believe these men were pushy credential checkers. This statement implies that Lot was nothing more than a dirty old man. The mere insinuation that Lot was anything other than a righteous man contradicts the Scriptures (2 Peter 2:7-8). The fact is that his daughters made him drunk in order to lie with him and have children by him because of their fear that no man would have them. Lot did not perceive when they lay down nor when they arose (19:33 and 35).

"Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?" In the first place, this charge is not true. "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" (Jude 7). Not only is their sin described, but they serve as an example for everlasting punishment.

But even if it were never mentioned again, what would that prove? The text makes it clear what their sin was, just as it does in Judges 19: 22 when certain sons of Belial "beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." More "credential checkers," no doubt. No, these perverse men abused his concubine all night long, thus making it a sexual matter from beginning to end.

"What was the Sin of Sodom?" asks this document. Though rich, "they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshiped idols" is the answer, with Ezekiel 16:48-50 being cited. And the passage does say those things, but it was probably a wise decision on their part not to quote the verses, especially verse 50, which states, "And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

As one might expect, however, these perverters of the Scripture try to make of no effect the word abomination by asserting that it applies solely to sexual acts tied to the practice of idolatry. Leviticus 18, although it condemns idolatry, does not primarily deal with such. Its major emphasis is upon sexual sins, of which homosexuality is one: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination" (Lev. 18: 22). Leviticus 20:13 also appears in the midst of a lengthy passage on sexual sins, not idolatry.

Is it true that the Hebrew word, toevah, translated "abomination," is usually associated with idolatry? It certainly is in the book of Deuteronomy, but just the opposite occurs in the book of Proverbs; none of the references are to idolatry (consider 6: 16, 8:11, 11:1, 12:22, 15:26, 16:5, and 17:15). The people trying to justify homosexuality through the Scriptures are themselves an abomination to God because God does not accept worship or sacrifices from the wicked: "The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination" (21:27). Furthermore, "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination" (28:9).

Once again, the word must be judged by the way it is used in its context. In Deuteronomy, the context of the word abomination is in association with idolatry. In Proverbs, that association is not found. The two times the word is found in Leviticus both have a context of sexual sins, not idolatry. Their argument is not a valid one.

But these homosexual authors have not even warmed up yet. Their efforts to destroy the force of Old Testament passages are nothing compared to what they attempt to do to the New Testament.

(to be continued)

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "PERVERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES FOR PERVERSION'S SAKE (4/28/96)."

Return To Article Index