Discussion-Leviticus 18:22

Discussion-Leviticus 18:22

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#4 Oct 8, 2009
In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
The chapters before and after chapter 18 deal extensively with idolatry. We can therefore expect that much of chapter 18 will deal with the same topic.
Leviticus 18, verses 6 to 21, contain a whole series of forbidden forms of incest with one's:
* Verse 6: relatives that are "near of kin."
* Verse 7: father or mother.
* Verse 8: father's wife.
* Verse 9: sister or step sister.
* Verse 10: granddaughter.
* Verse 11: sister or step sister.
* Verse 12: aunt on the father's side of the family.
* Verse 13: aunt on the mother's side of the family.
* Verse 14: uncle or aunt.
* Verse 15: daughter-in-law.
* Verse 16: sister-in-law.
* Verse 17: female friend together with a close female relative of the friend.
* Verse 18: wife's sister.
Verses 19 and 20 leave the topic of incest but continue the theme of forbidden sexual activity:
* Verse 19 forbids sexual activity with a menstruating woman.
* Verse 20 forbids adultery with a neighbor's wife.
At this point, there is a break in topic being discussed. The chapter switches to a condemnation of false forms of worship in general, and the worship of the Pagan god Molech in particular. Like many other Pagan temples, those dedicated to Molech had temple prostitutes. His followers believed that engaging in sexual activity with these prostitutes would please Molech and "... increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock and their fields." 1
* Verse 21 forbids ritual child sacrifice and names a Pagan god Molech to whom children were believed to have been sacrificed. The verse also forbids blasphemy against Yahweh.
Verse 22 is translated in the King James Version as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
* If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.
* If Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then one might expect that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#5 Oct 8, 2009
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.

There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

1. Zimah
Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God.

2. Toeyvah
Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in early Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

"... rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#6 Oct 8, 2009
The Mosaic code, and its applicability today:

The Torah is composed of the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). It contains numerous laws which make up the Mosaic code. Rabbi Simlai wrote in the Talmud (Jewish traditional commentary about the Hebrew Scriptures) that God gave 613 commandments to Moses. One list finds 3 commandments in Genesis, 111 in Exodus, 247 in Leviticus, 52 in Numbers and 200 in Deuteronomy. These included 365 prohibitions -- a number equal to the nominal number of days in the year. Also included are 248 positive commandments which Rabbi Simlai said corresponded "to the number of organs and limbs in the human body." Hundreds of these dealt with animal sacrifices and other topics that are not currently practiced. That leaves about 300 commandments that can be practiced today.

The Holiness Code in the Torah permits:

* slavery (Leviticus 25:44)

The code requires:

* A child to be killed if he/she curses their parent (Leviticus 20:9)
* All persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)
* The daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive until dead (21:9)
* The bride of a priest to be a virgin (21:13)
* Ritual killing of animals, using cattle, sheep and goats (22:19)
* Observation of 7 feasts: Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Firstfruits, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles (23)
* A person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)

The code prohibits:

* Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),
* Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
* Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
* Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
* Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
* Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
* Tattoos (19:28),
* Even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
* Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
* Collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing,
* Wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials; today this might be cotton and polyester, and
* Eating of non-kosher foods (e.g. shrimp).

Of the 613 laws, most Christian denominations regard very few as binding on Christians today. Conservative Christians often discuss:

* the Ten Commandments found in three places -- one of them being Exodus 20:3-17.
* Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 which relate to homosexuality.

They also accept laws which prohibit:

* Sexual contact between individuals who are too closely related,
* Out-of-species sexual contact,
* Adultery, and
* Some laws regarding the execution of properly convicted murderers.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#7 Oct 8, 2009
21st century Christians are free to wear tattoos, eat shrimp, pork or rare meat, wear polyester-cotton blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut. But most conservative Christians consider homosexual behavior -- and sometimes merely having a homosexual orientation -- as taboo. At first, we were unable to find any logical explanation that would justify conservative Christians concentrating so much on these two laws against homosexuality while abandoning most of the remaining 611 Mosaic laws.

The meaning of To'ebah (often translated abomination)

The Hebrew word "to'ebah" (or a form of the word) appears over 100 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

* Twenty-six times in the Torah:
o Twice in Genesis,
o Once in Exodus,
o Six times in Leviticus,
o Seventeen times in Deuteronomy.
* It is in the Major Prophets 58 times.
o Five times in 1 & 2 Kings,
o Three times in Isaiah,
o Eight times in Jeremiah,
o Once in Malachi,
o Forty one times in Ezekiel.
* In the Writings, it is found:
o Once in Psalms,
o Twenty five in Proverbs.
o Scattered throughout Ezra and II Chronicles.
* It was not used by the Minor Twelve Prophets, or in Numbers.

It is often translated as "abomination" or "detestable" in English. It can refer to the breaking of either a moral or ritual law. 1 Examples of ritual codes involving "to'ebah" in the NKJ translation are:

* Genesis 43:32" "...because the Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians." So, the President of Egypt meeting the Prime Minister of Israel sitting down to a meal together would be committing an abomination.
* Leviticus 11:10" "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." Eating a lobster is an abomination.
* Leviticus 11:41" "And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten." We have been told that rattlesnake tastes just like chicken.
* Deuteronomy 17:1: "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God." When engaging in ritual animal sacrifice, it is an abomination if the animal is not perfect.
* Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God." Presumably this would include a woman wearing jeans or slacks or a man wearing a kilt.
* Deuteronomy 24:4" "then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD." This relates to a woman who has been divorced by two husbands. If she decides to be loyal once more to her original marriage vows and returns to her first husband, then she commits an abomination.

When "to'ebah" refers to the breaking of a ritual law it might be better translated "ritually improper," or "involves foreign religious cult practice." Some of the "to'ebah" passages are considered without significance to Christians today. Many activities which were "to'ebah" transgressions to the ancient Israelites simply do not apply to modern cultures.

The above postings were taken from http://mcmike.us/blog with information obtained from http://www.religioustolerance.org/
hot dog lubber

United States

#8 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
Before we get to the definitions and/or translations..Lets look at the scripture..
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev 18:22 NIV
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" KJV
"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Amplified
One thing they ALL have in common is that it is clear that MAN should not Lie with a MAn as they would a woman...Correct?
What does this mean to you?
It means the Levites looked down and frowned upon gays, just like much of society does today. Just because they said it was from god doesn't make it necesarily so.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#11 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
Okay..Are we going to discuss this or play cut and paste all night? I can cut and paste all day and not even read a word of what I post
I thought I was going to discuss things with you. NOt see who can google the most information..
I am sitting here with 9 Bibles, 2 Strong's Concordances, A Smiths Bible Dictionary, Greek/English Interlinear, and a Hebrew/English interlinear..
Please do NOT waste my time..
I want to discuss YOUR knowledge, not some hetero bashing nutcase who posts debates on the internet..
And how does one gain knowledge but to research facts on the subject. Get a clue.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#12 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
<quoted text>
SO...YOUr assumption on those lines is that it is ok to have sex with sisters, brothers and the like also...IF not, then why is this? Is God showiung partiality to homosexuals, and prostitutes?
What? Where is "toevah" used to describe incest? Sure it may describe someone, though I'm not sure where, but the Bible also forbids it in Leviticus and does NOT use "toevah" to describe the sin. How is God showing partiality to prostitutes?

“Otter”

Since: Jan 07

New York, NY

#14 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
Before we get to the definitions and/or translations..Lets look at the scripture..
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev 18:22 NIV
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" KJV
"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Amplified
One thing they ALL have in common is that it is clear that MAN should not Lie with a MAn as they would a woman...Correct?
What does this mean to you?
The Ancient Jews were against homosexuality. Nothing more.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#15 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
<quoted text>
Then RESEARCH it...Online research is ok..BUt to dig in and cross reference and read the concordance andf interlinear for yourself is FAR better than to read someone elses research that is biased...I got a clue...NOw it is your turn
YOu do NOT have to be disrespectful to me..IF I see a point that will make me question my perspective, I assure you I will dig deeper into it...
IF you knew me, I would accept some off the cuff jabs..BUT sir..YOU know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about me, my background nor my education...
You have made comments in the order of questioning my Pastoral credentials..I may NOT be the run-of-the-mill Pastors that you are accustomed to..I have a VERY faithful congregation..Some were sceptical at first but have come to know my heart as well as my person...I am an open book with my congregation..We have some really amazing study sessions, which BTW are open studies where EVERYONE puts in their two bitsw and we come to an understanding of the Word...
Ya know..IF you do not believe in the Word of God, PLEASE do NOT participate in this discussion..IF you are serious about discussing scripture with an open mind..Then lets get to it...
I take the Bible VERY serious and do NOT take kindly to peope who only wish to discredit it and cause strife..
Wow, huffing and puffing again. Trying to divert the facts and, as of to date, not posting one piece of factual, verifiable information.

btw, your smoke screen isn't working.

Tell you what, why don't you try pinpointing this one: Where is "toevah" used in the Bible when it's NOT conveying an idolatry offense.

I guess you don't see the fault in you using a MAN made translation with a MAN made reference to back it up. As if the Lexicon couldn't at all be influenced by a man's bias.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#16 Oct 8, 2009
Saranacotter wrote:
<quoted text>The Ancient Jews were against homosexuality. Nothing more.
When used as part of a ritual. You're inferring it's a moral abomination when FOR A FACT that Hebrew word wasn't NOT used.

“Otter”

Since: Jan 07

New York, NY

#17 Oct 8, 2009
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
When used as part of a ritual. You're inferring it's a moral abomination when FOR A FACT that Hebrew word wasn't NOT used.
Actually I was inferring that it was for the Jews not for anyone else. Also I was just answering the first post, as to what the word was in Hebrew, or what the Ancient Jews did or did not consider a moral abomination - I do not care. It has no bearing on me. I do not have any problem with Gays, I consider it a sexual identity and not a choice of lifestyle. Please refer all attacks to FM - he is the Christian, I am a Deist and consider that all religions are myth.

“Otter”

Since: Jan 07

New York, NY

#21 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
we are not free to commit adultery, we are not free dishonor our parents.
Yes, however, I believe that the penalty has been much reduced since Leviticus.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#23 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
Strong's Number H8441 matches the Hebrew &#1514;&#1493;&#15 06;&#1489;&#1492; (tow`ebah), which occurs 117 times in 112 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV
Lexicon Results Strong's H8441 - tow`ebah &#1514;&#1493;&#15 06;&#1489;&#1492;
Transliteration
tow`ebah
Pronunciation
to·&#257;·bä'(Key)
Outline of Biblical Usage 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 117 AV — abomination 113, abominable thing 2, abominable 2
Your version is acceptable..BUT when used in context, it is still used to mean something unacceptable...
Whether you say the scripture was intended for male prostututes is of no importance as what was intended for onr to be holy or set apart, it would be intended for all...
I beg to differ
I'm not Pagan and I don't participate in temple prostitution so how could a law forbidding temple prostitution apply to me or anyone else???

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#24 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
Leviticus chapter 18 starts out with "The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them:'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.""...
And ends with..."'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
" 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'"
The sexual laws are in between..
The Israelites are the sam lot that God commanded Moses to give the Ten Commandments to...So are the Israelites the Prostitutes you are speaking of?
Yes the sexual laws are inbetween but the only time homosexuality is mentioned is when it's part of a ritual offense (ie, temple prostitution). You're trying to take a line and apply it to a modern concept that is only about 100 years old (ie, homosexuality as an orientation) yet you're ignoring the sentence right before this one that tells us not to sacrifice our children to Molech. Can you not see the problem? From one sentence they're talking about sacrificing our children, something that is ancient, to somehow discussing a modern concept that has come about in the past 100 years.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#25 Oct 8, 2009
Fishermike wrote:
<quoted text>
The penalty for SIN was death..Yes they also had social penalties that were instilled by people in an attempt to win aid in the quest for salvation..The need for Blood atonement has been abolished...This is what I am referring to as being "nailed to the cross" To say the "Law" itself was nailed would give way to all sins (see previous article) Theft, murder, adultery, etc..As well as the sexual sins outlined in Leviticus..Agree?
Yes in modern day....There are still social penalties to pay for crimes, but the punishments God doled out have been abolished...Many people get these laws and The Laws mixed up...And that is easy to understand how...
Next time I go into a temple and practice prostitution as part of a ritual then you're more then welcome to quote Leviticus to me.

“Otter”

Since: Jan 07

New York, NY

#26 Oct 8, 2009
If you think so.
Fishermike wrote:
<quoted text>
The penalty for SIN was death..Yes they also had social penalties that were instilled by people in an attempt to win aid in the quest for salvation..The need for Blood atonement has been abolished...This is what I am referring to as being "nailed to the cross" To say the "Law" itself was nailed would give way to all sins (see previous article) Theft, murder, adultery, etc..As well as the sexual sins outlined in Leviticus..Agree?
Yes in modern day....There are still social penalties to pay for crimes, but the punishments God doled out have been abolished...Many people get these laws and The Laws mixed up...And that is easy to understand how...
Agree? With you? Rarely, at least until you throw off the shackles of Religion. Hope to meet you on that day.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#29 Oct 8, 2009
The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!

From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.

Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.

Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#30 Oct 8, 2009
"Where does which Bible condemn Homosexuality":

"As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.

The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.

Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.

There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one.:-)

However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?

No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.

Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.

And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution.(unless you argue that the Sodomites must have been frowned on for their homosexuality, since we all know that rape-murder of angels is just fine with God). And here those nasty male temple prostitutes get kicked out again over in 2 Kings.

How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?

Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of gay teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat gay people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)

***continued***

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#31 Oct 8, 2009
In addition, the Hebrew theology of women was based on the fact man was made in the image of God and should be treated with the same respect as God. Women, however were created in the image of men, so they were one step further removed from God and not deserving of the same respect. As a result a women was under the domination of a man and used sexually at the whim of their husband. If a man were to treat another man in the same manner that would be degrading God. So to "lie with a man as with a women" was blasphemous degrading God to a mere possession as a women.

The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.

Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love.

http://bible.org/seriespage/boundaries-godly-...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#32 Oct 8, 2009
Regarding the Leviticus reference to toevah being false translated and having nothing to do with homosexuality: A further evidence of this is toevah is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim" "the uncleanness of the Gentiles" (e.g., 2 (4) Kings 16:3).

The significance of toevah become clear when your realize the other Hebrew word "zimah" could have been used - if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. For example, in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry, "toevah" is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general a different word "zimah," appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29). Often but yes, not always, "toevah" specifically means "idol" (E.g., Isa. 44:19; Ezek 7:20, 16:36; Jer. 16:18; cf. Deut. 7:25-26).

Clearly, then, Leviticus does not say that a man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Rather, it is a ritual violation, an "uncleanness"; it is something "dirty" ritualistically. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live, as its opening remark make clear - "After the doings of the land of Egypt,.....etc and the prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods)(often mistranslated fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).

This conclusion finds further support in the Septuagint where the toevah is translated with the Greek word "bdelygma". Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity. Once again, other Greek words were available, like "anomia", meaning a violation of law or a wrong or a sin. That word could have been used to translate toevah. In fact, in some cases anomia was used to translate toevah- when the offense in question was not just a ritual impurity but also a real wrong of an injustice, like offering child sacrifice or having sex with another man's wife, in violation of his property rights. The Greek translators could have used anomia; they used bdelygma.

Evidently, the Jews of that pre-Christian era simply did not understand Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it is wrong in itself. They understood Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it offended ancient Jewish sensitivities: it was dirty and Canaanite-like, it was unjewish. And that is exactly how they translated the Hebrew text into Greek before Christ. It makes no statement about the morality of homosexual acts as such. In today's society similar unclean acts might include picking ones nose, burping or passing gas.

I think its not that useful to get all hung up on Lev cleanliness codes which made meat eating and matching of fibers just as terrible sins. The NT is more significant for Christians following Christ instead of Jews trying to follow the OT rituals to be accepted by God. Jesus said not a word even mistranslated about homosexuality.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min Chilli J 45,715
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Michael 691,871
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 18 min Exposing Devil Lies 990,681
"Come on in the house,A.C. We wanna talk to O.J." 28 min Doctor REALITY 1
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 51 min Eagle 12 - 6,702
Mista Shrink Doo Doo Bwain! 2 hr Doctor REALITY 3
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 3 hr el rey de los cam... 8,526
More from around the web