The word sodomy comes from the 6th century AD when the Emperor Justinian use it in his Corpus iuris civilis (body of civil law). Prior to that date, nobody had ever used it in that manner that we are aware of. In fact, the idea that gay sex was one of the primary reasons that Sodom was destroyed was a brand new theory put forth by Justinian. He used it to prosecute his political opponents when he could not find any other charges to lay against them because at the time gay sex was common.You still trying to tell me the Sodomites weren't engaged in unbiblical and deviant homosexual relations? And that they didn't try to gay-rape the angels? What planet are you living on? Where do you think the word Sodomy comes from, nitwit? And you think angels engage in gay sex? Your theology is so far out in left field that I doubt you will ever find your way back to reality.
The church actually argued AGAINST Justinians theory and it would have been forgotten to history except that a monk known as Benedict the Levi used it in the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals. The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals were FAKE documents prepared by a group of Frankish monks that were supposed to have been the writings of early popes. They were FAKE. They were a LIE. He used Justinians theory in FAKE writings that he attributed to Charlemagne. He also broadened the definition to all sexual acts not related to procreation (yep, that blowjob was sodomy).
That forgery was used to justify the killings during the inquisition, easy, possibly the darkest period in the history of Christianity, and despite the fact that we know ABSOLUTELY that they were nothing more than forgeries, you are using them as a pillar of your faith.
The reality, easy, is that we cant be sure what happened when the angels when to soddom. The story as you claim it is meant to be read makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You would have to be dumber than a sack of hammers to come to the conclusions that you have. It simply does not make sense.
There is another explanation that makes more sense than either that we have looked at. It requires a little better translation than the NIV, which, as we have already covered, is known to be the least accurate translation. Here is the story from the NASB, which is recognized as the MOST accurate translation:
Look at the bolded part. ALL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER. Check the original text....it is there. In every single version of the original text that we have. In fact, the original hebrew is anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom, which can translate as EITHER "the men of the city, the men of sodom" OR "the people of the city, the people of sodom". However, "all the people from every quarter" can not possibly be translated to mean anything BUT "all the people".Genesis 19
1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” 3 Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 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.” 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 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.”
That changes the story COMPLETELY. It is not just every man in town that is standing outside the house, it is every PERSON in town. That means that either the men are surrounding the house, while the women and children stand beyond. OR, they were just saying "all the people, all the people of sodom, all the people from every quarter". I have to admit, I was kind of trying to lead you here with the "every man in sodom was gay" thing, but since your eyes and ears have been closed by satan, it flew right past you.
Regardless of which translation you prefer (personally I feel the second makes more sense), the fact is that ALL THE PEOPLE of Sodom were there. So, for this to be about gay sex, the men of sodom would have pretty much had to have invited their wives and children (and it does specify children) to a giant homosexual rape party. Does that still sound reasonable to you?
Then, in your understanding of the story, offers his daughters to this gang of men who are just hell bent on doing some homosexual raping. Now, I am not gay, but even I know enough to know that you are not going to placate hundreds of homosexuals that are just hell bent on raping some men by offering them women. Gay men dont have sex with women. That is what makes them gay men. If the men in front of lots house actually intended to rape the visitors, it would have made a LOT more sense for Lot to either offer himself as a replacement, OR offer his wifes fiances, which under the law at the time he COULD have done. But, instead of offering the gay men different men to rape, he tries to pass women off on them. That simply does not make sense.
It is also worth noting that the term used in the original text is yada...to know or to be familiar with. It is used as a euphamism for sex in about 10 places in the bible, for example it is used when they say that "adam knew his wife and she concieved". The rest of the time it is used like "God knew David" (hint...god did NOT have sex with david). The other 10 times it is used in the bible in regards to sex it is basically a discreet way used by the narrator to describe sex.
The problem is that if your version of the story is correct (frankly a version that, by now, looks pretty silly) the there was a mob standing around lots house hell bent on anally raping a couple of strangers, yelling "send them out so we can have some private grown up time" (my wifes euphemism for sex if she is afraid that little ears might be listening). This would have to be the most polite rape mob in the history of the planet earth. There are plenty of hebrew verbs to describe sex. Agav is used in the bible, and is at least somewhat vulgar (not quite so vulgar as the F word, but somewhere along the same lines as "bone" or "bang")
I have looked into early Jewish texts, basically on the logic that this was essentially a Jewish story out of the Torah, so they should understand it. None of the early Jewish authors saw fit to comment on exactly what the people of Sodom intended to do with the strangers...others were pretty much supposed to already know (back to the problem with the story...after being handed down for generations verbally it does not make sense anymore...at the point that, for example, the Talmud was written, the story would have been much fresher and probably actually still made sense).
One thing that we CAN establish is that nowhere in the early jewish writings do they ever equate Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality. In the Mishnah (Avont 5:13) they say "He who says, "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours"--this is the common type, though some say that this is the type of Sodom." This very clearly indicates that according to the early jews, the people who would have been familiar with the unadulterated version of the story, the sin of Sodom was an economic one...the same as that put forth by Ezekiel.
But, any reasonable person would have already come to that conclusion since the angels were sent because god had ALREADY DECIDED to destroy Sodom, meaning that whatever the people of Sodom meant to do to them could not have been the reason for its destruction...a decision made before it ever happened.
I actually have my own theory about what the people of Sodom intended to do to the angels that makes sense under ALL the biblical passages and can be supported historically. I think the people of Sodom intended to eat the strangers. The people of Sodom were Canaanites. There are 2 other places in the bible where you see the phraseology used in Jude for "strange flesh" or "different flesh". The first is in relation to angels having sex with human women to create the nephilim. The second is in referring to cannibalism among the Canaanites.
That actually explains the entire thing and ties up every loose end, including why it was written so obtusely. Cannibalism was so taboo among the Jews that they were not supposed to even discuss it, much less actually write about it. It has been suggested that the prohibition against eating pork is because pork resembles cooked human so closely. These people were EXTREMELY anti cannibalism.
That is why when they talk about Canaanites indulging in cannibalism they resort to talking about eating "strange flesh" as opposed to just coming out and saying "they ate babies". Jude would have known this, and been bound by the same taboo, thus his use of the same phrase...one that his contemporaries would have immediately recognized as a euphemism for cannibalism. That also explains why early jewish authors did not delve into the story. They, too, would have been bound by the taboo. It would not, however, be unusual for them to expect that the readers in such a case would already know and understand what was up, people tend to remember the cannibal neighbors.