Anti gay leviticus
Lost in Translation: Alternative Sense in Leviticus
Most traditional English translations interpret Leviticus as a divine condemnation of erotic, same-sex relationships. However, careful philological, literary analysis of the authentic Hebrew shows another interpretation: a divine condemnation of same-sex rape. The first Hebrew is more ambiguous than the traditional English translation. Instead of practicing the principle of lectio difficilior probabilitor, “the more difficult reading and more likely reading,” modern translators dispel ambiguity by making the translation as basic as possible.[1] However, the translators’ attempts to clarify the Hebrew text presents a reading that is not only harmful, but incongruent to the context of Leviticus. This essay focuses on three main points in K. Renato Ling’s literary analysis of Lev. that provides a holistic interpretation. First, the addition of propositions within Lev. by English translators alters the verse’s interpretation. Second, the reoccurrence of the rare Hebrew pos miškevēwithin Gen. presents a philological nuance that is crucial to discerning the word’s incestuous connotation in Lev. Third, when this alternative conno
Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?
Reprinted with permission from The Forge Online
The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to express “homosexual” until
We got to lounge down with Ed Oxford at his home in Long Beach, California and talk about this interrogate.
You possess been part of a research team that is seeking to understand how the decision was made to put the pos homosexual in the bible. Is that true?
Ed: Yes. It first showed up in the RSV translation. So before figuring out why they decided to use that word in the RSV translation (which is outlined in my upcoming guide with Kathy Baldock, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay) I wanted to spot how other cultures and translations treated the identical verses when they were translated during the Reformation years ago. So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish… you name it. Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve unhurried over time. Anyway, I had a German friend appear back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in
Why Care What Leviticus Says About Homosexuality?
Joe Heschmeyer:
Welcome help to Shameless Popery, I&#;m Joe Heschmeyer. I hope for to talk today about the old law and what its role is for Christians. Is the Old Testament law still binding, the Law of Moses? So, historically people say there&#;s laws in the Law of Moses. That number is Maimonides, it&#;s kind of controversial whether that number is even accurate or not. But needless to tell, there are arguably hundreds, although the exact number may be debated. But hundreds of different rules and regulations, things that you should do or in many cases not do in the Statute of Moses. And the question becomes, for Christians, are we still bound by that? Are we bound by any of that? What&#;s its role? And now, that conversation historically has come up in a lot of different contexts. One of the first places it came up was, should we still circumcise converts to the faith?
Because that was a big deal. Another is, well, should we worship on Saturday or Sunday? But these days, if I had to guess the number one place this debate seems to come up, it&#;s should we attend to what the guide of Leviticus has to say about homosexuality? Because th
The Bible on Homosexual Behavior
One way to argue against these passages is to make what I dial the “shellfish objection.” Keith Sharpe puts it this way: “Until Christian fundamentalists boycott shellfish restaurants, cease wearing poly-cotton T-shirts, and stone to death their wayward offspring, there is no obligation to heed to their diatribes about homosexuality being a sin” (The Gay Gospels, 21).
In other words, if we can disregard rules enjoy the ban on eating shellfish in Leviticus , then we should be allowed to disobey other prohibitions from the Elderly Testament. But this argument confuses the Old Testament’s temporary ceremonial laws with its permanent moral laws.
Here’s an analogy to aid understand this distinction.
I recall two rules my mom gave me when I was young: hold her hand when I cross the street and don’t drink what’s under the sink. Today, I hold to follow only the latter rule, since the former is no longer needed to protect me. In fact, it would now do me more harm than good.
Old Testament ritual/ceremonial laws were appreciate mom’s handholding rule. The reason they forbade the Israelites from using certain fabrics or foods, or interacting with bodily flui
.