Before {Lot and the angels (who had appeared as men) had retired}, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them {KJV 'that we may know them'}'.Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing" (Genesis 19:4-7 NIV).
    Derrick Shewin Baily was the first modern theologian to question the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. He argues the King James translation "to know" is not a reference to sexual intercourse and therefore would argue that the New International Translation cited above is a poor translation. He observes that the primary meaning of the Hebrew word yada, "to know," means to get acquainted with" or "having knowledge of" and has few sexual connotations. He argues that the word occurs 943 times in the Old Testament and yet is only used a dozen times to refer to sexual intercourse. "Thus it is exceptional to find yada employed in a coital sense." Further, in those rare cases where it is employed, it refers only to heterosexual intercourse.
    From this perspective, the Sodomites were allegedly angry with Lot for allowing strangers whose good or evil motives were unknown to enter his house. (These were the angels (Genesis 19:1) who appeared in the form of men.) Thus, the townspeople were demanding to "know" only the strangers' intent and character. (But surely if the people of Sodom were as evil as the Scripture teaches, it is doubtful their general wickedness would produce such a moral concern.)
    First, word meaning is determined not only by definition and priority but also by general context. It is true that only about a dozen usages of yada in the Bible refer to sexual intercourse. However, in its immediate context (Genesis 19:5) yada can mean nothing other than sexual intercourse. Lot was facing an emergency. He was confused and fearful. He did not know who these angels were, but he was undoubtedly impressed with them. So he rashly offers his daughters to mollify the sexual appetites of the crowd (Genesis 19:8). Acting out of sheer desperation and hopelessness, he proposes a lesser evil (heterosexual rape) in place of a greater evil (homosexual rape). Otherwise, why would a father offer his daughters to be raped if the Sodomites were merely violating social custom by making an impolite request to evaluate the strangers' characters? The fact that Lot refers to his daughters' virgin status indicates he understood the sexual content of the request and therefore offered a sexual bribe. Notice also that the men were not interested in the women; they refused Lot's offer and angrily demanded their lust be satisfied by what they thought were men (Genesis 19:9). Also, "in verse 8 the same verb {yada} with the negative particle is used to describe Lot's daughters as having 'not known' a man. The verb here obviously means 'have intercourse with'. Clearly then ,yada refers to sexual intercourse.
    Second, additional Scriptures clearly identify the primary sin of Sodom as sexual, and significantly, as perverted sexuality. Second Peter 2:7-10 refers to the behavior of the men of Sodom as the "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" (NSAB) and to their lawless deeds," noting that God's judgment is specially reserved for "those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (NASB). Jude 7 teaches that "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them...indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh" (NASB).
    The term "strange flesh" could imply unnatural acts between men or even of human beings with animals. The inhabitants of Canaan were guilty of both of these sins (Leviticus 18:23-29). This definitely includes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. History and archaeology confirm the same conditions.
    Third, Jewish and Christian tradition uniformly testifies that the sin of Sodom was homosexual. For example, one rabbinic commentary notes the Sodomites had an agreement among themselves to sodomize and rob all strangers. Philo, a Jew of Alexandria (25 B.C. to A.D. 45), noted that in Sodom "the men became accustomed to bring treated like women."
    After citing numerous early sources in confirmation of this fact (Josephus, Justin Martyr, Methodius of Olympius, etc.), systematic theologian Dr. John Jefferson Davis concludes, "It is clear that both the immediate context of Genesis 19:5 and a long history of both Jewish and Christian interpretation point unmistakably to the true meaning of the text: homosexuality practices. Bailey's misinterpretation of the text, which has become a stock argument in pro-homosexual circles, simply cannot be sustained."
    Finally, modern biblical commentators are in almost universal agreement that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. To name but a few: Keil and Delitzsch, H. C. Leupold, P. J. Lange, and many others.
    In Jude 7 it is specifically stated that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was both a lesson and a divine warning to all men regarding homosexuality. Who will argue that this is not the historical legacy of Sodom and Gomorrah? These are known worldwide as cities on which God visited divine judgment because of their homosexual practices. Even Bailey confesses, "This story has exercised a powerful influence, directly or indirectly, upon the civil and ecclesiastical attitudes to {homosexuality}..." Indeed, if this passage never had reference to homosexuality, how did the term "sodomy" (from Sodom) become a universal synonym for homosexuality?
 

Taken from The Facts On Homosexuality by, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Published by Harvest House Publishers.

Are You Rapture Ready?