Leviticus 18:22

Status
Not open for further replies.

leecappella

<font size="3&quot ;>DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
<SPAN class=postbody>The below information can be found at the following link:

target=_blank&gt;[url]http://www.carolinanavy.com/fleet2/f2/zbible/Leviticushall/cas/3.html[/URL]

CONCERNING LEVITICUS 18:22

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD." ~ Lev 18:21

"Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." ~ Lev. 20:2


Mr. Dionisio comments:
What on earth does a verse about Molech have to do with a well ordered text
that talks everywhere else about sex? Translators were perplexed by this
apparently out-of-place Molech verse for centuries.

Most perplexed translators looked at other places in the Bible where references
to Molech seemed to refer rather clearly to burnt offerings of children. Thus the
King James Version added "[the fire]" to the text, using brackets to warn
readers that those words were the words of the translator, not of the bible.

Unfortunately, there is no justification for assuming the verse refers to the
burnt sacrifice of children to Molech. Furthermore, the idea of burnt offering
takes into account only part of what we know about the religion.

What exactly is it that parents were not supposed to do with their children? The
Hebrew words "pass through to Molech" don't make much sense to us. "Pass
through" what? It's no surprise that KJV tried to clear up the ambiguity with
"pass through the fire," even if it is misleading.

In the Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary on Leviticus, [JPS
5749/1989], Baruch A. Levine says in a note on the translation of this phrase
"Rather, 'Do not dedicate any of your offspring to Molech.' The verb n-t-n used
in this statement may mean 'to devote, dedicate,' as an offspring to a deity."

Now "devote, dedicate" doesn't necessarily mean sacrifice. Nuns and monks
devote or dedicate themselves to the service of their god. A thousand years
ago it was common practice for parents to dedicate children to god's service by
sending them at a very early age to a monastery or nunnery. That's very
interesting in view of the Septuagint translation, "And thou shalt not give thy
seed to serve a ruler."

The Jews who translated the Hebrew into Greek in 250BC didn't think of this
verse as involving human sacrifice, but rather as dedication to service. That's
not surprising, for they, unlike modern translators, lived in a time where such
dedication to service was all around them. They were so convinced that the text
meant "dedicated to living service," that they confused the Hebrew "Molech"
(heathen god) with "Melech" (king, ruler) -- a confusion very understandable
given the lack of vowels, and the context of the passage. They could easily
envision being dedicated to serve a king or ruler.

What was the service of Molech to which Jews should not dedicate their
children? In Hebrew there is a word "qadesh" [which means "male temple
prostitue" - ('Theological Word Dictionary of the Old Testament', 'The Invention
of Sodomy in Christian Theology']

These people were prostitutes who were dedicated to a heathen god and
worked in the sex trade in the service of that god. It's interesting that in Lev
18, a chapter on sex, we find an injunction not to "dedicate" children to Molech,
while elsewhere we find mention of prostitutes "dedicated" or "devoted" to
heathen gods.

Were these "qadesh" religious prostitutes dedicated to the service of Molech?

1Kings 11:5 tells us that Solomon followed "Molech the detestable god of the
Ammonites."(NIV. The KJV has "Milcom" the "abomination" instead of "Molech.")
He built churches for this and other gods so his foreign wives could practice
their religions. In verse 7, it's stated again that Molech is the abomination of the
Ammonites, and KJV also says this.

In 1 Kings 14:21, we're told that Solomon's son Reheboam began to rule in
Judah, and that his mother was an Ammonite. We may be sure that Reheboam
was well steeped in the Molech religion of his mother, and that he no doubt
implemented it to a far greater degree than Solomon.

It is at this point, 1 Kings 14:24, that we read "There were also cult prostitutes
in the land. Judah imitated all the abominable practices of the nations whom the
Lord had cleared out of the Israelites' way." (NAB) The echoes of Leviticus 18
are remarkable. Read it, and about the "abominations" and clearing of people
out of the way so the Israelites could move in, and the threat that the Isrealites
also would be vomited out if they practiced those abominations.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Molech religion involved the "qadesh"
religious prostitutes.

Now Leviticus 18:21 begins to make sense. It's not about burning children in
sacrifice, but about dedicating them to serve Molech as religious prostitutes.

Suddenly this verse fits perfectly in context with the rest of Leviticus 18. It is
also about sex. (There are other verses, in Deuteronomy for example, that
forbid Jews from letting their children become "qadesh," either male or female,
and both male and female prostitutes are called "abomination" using the same
word as in Lev 18.)

What of the following verses -- thou shalt not lie with a male, etc.?

[END QUOTE]


"You shall not lie with a male as though a woman; it is an abomination." ~ Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as though a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." ~ Leviticus 20:13

In ancient Pagan Caananite religion, the belief was that the fertility of the land depended on the sex god Molech, or Baal, having sex with the goddess Asherah. The temple had prostitutes represent the goddess asherah, while the customer of represented molech. This sex was a form of worship to Molech, the believed result of this worship was that the land would never go barren.

The worshpper would visit the temple and become the avatar of Molech while having sex with the prostitute, who was the avatar of Asherah. He would make an offering first though (making it temple *prostitution*).

But, what really get's interesting here is that these prostitutes (who were avatars of asherah)were men, usually BOYS! These males/ boys dressed up as women, wearing vestments and even an elaborate mask of the goddess asherah. The customers of these boy-prostitutes were always men... men who lied with males as though they were actually females!


So either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are blanket condemntions of homosexuality, or they describe the act taking part in the Baal fertility rituals. The latter is more supported:


The beginning of Leviticus reads,

"The Lord spoke to Moses saying 'Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am
the Lord your God. According to the doings in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. You shall observe My judgments and keep my ordinances to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statues and my judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. ...'"

The "doings in the land of Canaan" would be that of Baal fertility Rituals.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 only mention males. There is no prohibition on lesbianism in these texts. Why? Because the Baal Fertility Rituals only involved men.

VERSE 21- As we saw before, 18:21 forbids devoting your children to Molech to serve as temple prostitutes. It would make sense then if Lev. 18:22 referred to those who use Temple prostitutes (Baal fertility Rituals). See also, 20:1-6.

Original wording and Grammer- Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are surrounded by condemntions of inappropriate behavior with animals, adultery, and incest; but those two verses are the only ones that use the hebrew word 'toevah'. The hebrew word translated as "abomination" in Lev. 18:22 and 20;13 was to'evah. "Toevah" in the context of breaking of a ritual law might better be translated as "ritually improper" or "involves foreign religious cult practice." "toevah" specifically means "idol" (E.g., Isa. 44:19; Ezek 7:20, 16:36; Jer. 16:18; cf. Deut. 7:25-26). Hence, while prohibiting prostitution involving idolatry, "toevah" is used (e.g. 1st Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general the word "zimah" is used (e.g. Lev. 19:29). "To'evah" is almost always used in conjunction of idol worship.

The LXX. (Greek Old Testament - 250 BC.) translates "tovevah" in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity.

The word man, or male is "zokar" which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition" (Strong’s #H2142. According to the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible edited by Spiros Zodhiates [Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994, p 1722]). This word was used to refer to high priests of the surrounding idolatrous religions.

Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person"

If the writer wanted to refer to homosexuality in general he (or she) would of (1) used different grammer and words (2) would of used hebrew "zimah" instead of the idolatrous word "toevah", and "iysha" instead of "zokar".

Thus the evidence shows that the author of Leviticus had nothing other than religious prostitution in mind.</SPAN>

<SPAN class=postbody>In Christ, </SPAN>

<SPAN class=postbody>leecappella</SPAN>
 
Let me just point out some things that seem to be inconsistant.&nbsp; First&nbsp;the information that you provided&nbsp;begins by saying, "What on earth does a verse about Molech have to do with a well ordered text that talks everywhere else about sex?"&nbsp; Later on it trys to ascribe the&nbsp;pertinance of the two verses in question to a&nbsp;"ritual law."&nbsp; I don't understand, if&nbsp;chapter 18 of Leviticus is&nbsp;pointing out&nbsp;unlawful sexual relations, refering to them all as "abomination" (lev 18:29),&nbsp;then why would verse 21 and 22&nbsp;be refering to an obscure&nbsp;unlawful ritualistic practice?

Also, your source makes it very clear that temple prostitutes (qadesh) were common in this region, and concludes that the author of Leviticus was merely refering to religious prostitution in Leviticus 18:21-22/20:13.&nbsp; Yet no where in these verses is the word qadesh used.&nbsp; Still Leviticus&nbsp;18 is very direct&nbsp;when&nbsp;it speaks about the specifc acts that one "shalt not" do.&nbsp; It seems that if the author's intentions of Leviticus 18:21-22 really were to outlaw temple prostitution, then they would've specifically said, "thou shalt not lie with a temple prostitute as one lies with a woman," but&nbsp;they don't.&nbsp; Instead&nbsp;they use the word zakar, which primary definition is to indicate the male of a species.&nbsp; No where&nbsp;in the Bible is zakar used to refer to a temple prostitute.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
Appollo Belvedre:&nbsp;

1.&nbsp;Read Leviticus 20:2-5. I do believe some kind of sexual reference is there.

2. Read history sources on Molech and those false gods associated with him. You should find same sex references for ritualistic purposes.

3. The bible did not originally have verse reference numbers, so I believe the authour intended to have the Molech reference right where he has it. Since he knew what he was implying, it made sense to him to do so. Especially in his own culture where those he were addressing knew and understood his meanings. We are the ones today who have to figure out his meanings.

4. Word usage can vary, as you know. I can talk about a prostitue without mentioning the word 'prostitute' in order for whoever is listening to get my point!

5. All things in Leviticus are an 'abomination'. Singling out these verses is easy for heterosexuals to do since no personal stake is in it for them. They cannot relate to homosexuality, so it is easy to pick it out amongst a list that has other things that heterosexuals can relate to, but seemingly overlook because they (heterosexuals) commit them (eat pork, seafood, wear clothes made of two fabrics, etc.)


In love,

leecappella
 
Upvote 0
14th April 2003 at 08:08 PM seebs said this in Post #3

I think his case is well-made. "Abomination" is a word used, in Leviticus, *PRECISELY* for unlawful ritual practices. The English usage is a poor translation.

Concerning the emphasis&nbsp;that's&nbsp;given on&nbsp;the&nbsp;presence of the word&nbsp;"abomination" in Leviticus.&nbsp; The Hebrew word for abomination (tow'ebah), is only used&nbsp;six times in Leviticus.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is&nbsp;done&nbsp;deliberatly to&nbsp;describe the kind of&nbsp;illicit sexual activity mentioned in ch.18, and thus is why it is used so sparingly.&nbsp; Now, tow'ebah has two connotations, one in the ritual sense (unclean food, idolatry, mixed marriages),&nbsp;and one in the ethical sense (wickedness).&nbsp; Taken the context that leviticus 18:22 is found in, and&nbsp;the fact that&nbsp;language used to describe what&nbsp;that verse&nbsp;strictly prohibits is also used to describe&nbsp;every other illicit&nbsp;act&nbsp;listed in the chapter, we're inclined to suppose one of two things.&nbsp; Either the "abominations" in ch.18 are abominable ritually, or they're abominable ethically,&nbsp;but&nbsp;it&nbsp;can't be both.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0
Yesterday at 02:14 PM leecappella said this in Post #4

Appollo Belvedre:&nbsp;

1.&nbsp;Read Leviticus 20:2-5. I do believe some kind of sexual reference is there.

2. Read history sources on Molech and those false gods associated with him. You should find same sex references for ritualistic purposes.

3. The bible did not originally have verse reference numbers, so I believe the authour intended to have the Molech reference right where he has it. Since he knew what he was implying, it made sense to him to do so. Especially in his own culture where those he were addressing knew and understood his meanings. We are the ones today who have to figure out his meanings.

4. Word usage can vary, as you know. I can talk about a prostitue without mentioning the word 'prostitute' in order for whoever is listening to get my point!

5. All things in Leviticus are an 'abomination'. Singling out these verses is easy for heterosexuals to do since no personal stake is in it for them. They cannot relate to homosexuality, so it is easy to pick it out amongst a list that has other things that heterosexuals can relate to, but seemingly overlook because they (heterosexuals) commit them (eat pork, seafood, wear clothes made of two fabrics, etc.)


In love,

leecappella

1.&nbsp; I don't dispute that.

2.&nbsp; I'm not denying that.

3.&nbsp; Good point, and&nbsp;this is why.&nbsp; True, in the begining there were no&nbsp;numbers to distinguish between verses I'm well aware of that, but you seem to be overlooking one simple fact.&nbsp; Every act prohibited in ch.18 of&nbsp;Leviticus begins with&nbsp;three simple words, "thou shalt not."&nbsp; That is the distinguishing mark between verse 21 and verse 22.&nbsp; The author is&nbsp;condemning two different things.&nbsp; This is only emphasised by the fact that&nbsp;the punishment for lying with other men does not follow the punishment for prostituting one's children to Molech in ch.20.&nbsp;&nbsp;Contrary to 20:16 that directly follows 20:15 because of their correlation.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meaning Leviticus 18:21 and 18:22 are two seperate things.&nbsp;

4.&nbsp; Exactly.&nbsp;&nbsp;Deuteronomy 23:17 explicitly&nbsp;mentions the word for a male temple prostitute and relates it to the word for dog in the following verse because dog was slang for a male prostitute in Biblical times.&nbsp; Yet neither qadesh, or keleb are used in Leviticus 18:22.&nbsp; Only the word zakar, which is never used to describe a male prostitute.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


5.&nbsp; Correction, all things in Leviticus ch.18 are abominations.&nbsp; The only other time tow'ebah is used in Leviticus is in&nbsp;ch.20 to describe the act in question&nbsp;first mentioned&nbsp;in ch.18.&nbsp; I think its interesting that&nbsp;before you said, "somethings are sins in and of themselves" and then went on to list a variety of acts that happen to be found in&nbsp;ch.18 of&nbsp;Leviticus.&nbsp; In fact&nbsp;I'm&nbsp;sure that you would have no reservations in calling&nbsp;everything in ch.18 a "sin in and of itself", all except 18:22 that you seem to&nbsp;be reluctant in accepting.

1&nbsp;Corinthians 15:23-24,

Apollo Belvedre
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
Apollo Belvedre:

3. Everything in Leviticus that is presented as prohibitions are 'thou shalt nots', regardless if those three words are used or not. 'Thou shalt not' does not have to be said each time in order for the reader to get the context of the whole text. Nor does it mean if a new verse begins with the three words that the new verse is separate from the previous one. Really, only the author could know that since what is being said is coming from within him, not someone else. I am merely stating my take on what I see and have read. If a driving instructor said, "Thou shalt not put thy foot on the gas pedal while approaching oncoming traffic", and then added, "Thou shalt not commit suicide and murder", this does not mean the instructor is speaking of two separate things. One has to do with the other. One is a cause, the other is the effect. It could also be said that both mean the same thing. If one gives his seed to Molech, in the levitical context, the effect would be that seed lying with mankind as with womankind. If one gives his seed to Molech, in the levitical context, it is the same as saying one's seed will eventually be lying with mankind as with womankind. Why? Because giving on'e child to Molech is to raise them as a temple devotee to the idol and being a temple devotee requires lying with worshippers when they come to the temple. On the same token, if the driver accelerates into oncoming traffic, the effect would be suicide and murder. If the driver accelerated into oncoming traffic, it is the same as commiting suicide and murder.

4. Again, the distinct word 'prostitute', 'qadesh', or even 'keleb' does not have to be used in order for those being addressed to understand the author's intended meaning. I'm not saying that the word 'mankind' means male temple prostitute. I am saying that it was used to refer to the act that male temple prostitutes were known for: lying with men as with women for the purpose of worshipping an idol. This act was what children who were given to Molech as temple devotees did, thus the connection between the two verses and Leviticus 20:5's reference to commiting whoredom with Molech.

5. I agree that all things are an abomination in Leviticus as a whole, where prohibitions are given. Let's face it, Leviticus does list some things that are not a sin in and of themselves (ie. wearing two types of fabrics) while it does list some things that are a sin in and of themselves (ie. adultery). The key word here is some. Just because the prohibitions in Leviticus are described in context as abominations does not make each prohibition a sin in and of itself. Wearing clothes made of two fabrics, eating seafood, eating pork, etc. are examples of this. And yes, I would call 18:22 a sin in and of itself, for the sin is male temple prostitution, not two people in a relationship.

In love,

leecappella
 
Upvote 0
Today at 06:53 AM leecappella said this in Post #7

Apollo Belvedre:

3. Everything in Leviticus that is presented as prohibitions are 'thou shalt nots', regardless if those three words are used or not. 'Thou shalt not' does not have to be said each time in order for the reader to get the context of the whole text. Nor does it mean if a new verse begins with the three words that the new verse is separate from the previous one. Really, only the author could know that since what is being said is coming from within him, not someone else. I am merely stating my take on what I see and have read. If a driving instructor said, "Thou shalt not put thy foot on the gas pedal while approaching oncoming traffic", and then added, "Thou shalt not commit suicide and murder", this does not mean the instructor is speaking of two separate things. One has to do with the other. One is a cause, the other is the effect. It could also be said that both mean the same thing. If one gives his seed to Molech, in the levitical context, the effect would be that seed lying with mankind as with womankind. If one gives his seed to Molech, in the levitical context, it is the same as saying one's seed will eventually be lying with mankind as with womankind. Why? Because giving on'e child to Molech is to raise them as a temple devotee to the idol and being a temple devotee requires lying with worshippers when they come to the temple. On the same token, if the driver accelerates into oncoming traffic, the effect would be suicide and murder. If the driver accelerated into oncoming traffic, it is the same as commiting suicide and murder.&nbsp;&nbsp;

4. Again, the distinct word 'prostitute', 'qadesh', or even 'keleb' does not have to be used in order for those being addressed to understand the author's intended meaning. I'm not saying that the word 'mankind' means male temple prostitute. I am saying that it was used to refer to the act that male temple prostitutes were known for: lying with men as with women for the purpose of worshipping an idol. This act was what children who were given to Molech as temple devotees did, thus the connection between the two verses and Leviticus 20:5's reference to commiting whoredom with Molech.&nbsp;&nbsp;

5. I agree that all things are an abomination in Leviticus as a whole, where prohibitions are given. Let's face it, Leviticus does list some things that are not a sin in and of themselves (ie. wearing two types of fabrics) while it does list some things that are a sin in and of themselves (ie. adultery). The key word here is some. Just because the prohibitions in Leviticus are described in context as abominations does not make each prohibition a sin in and of itself. Wearing clothes made of two fabrics, eating seafood, eating pork, etc. are examples of this. And yes, I would call 18:22 a sin in and of itself, for the sin is male temple prostitution, not two people in a relationship.

In love,

leecappella

3.&nbsp; You're reading things that aren't there.&nbsp; Remember this is a book of laws, meaning that&nbsp;the laws must be written clear enough&nbsp;so that more than just the author&nbsp;will be able to&nbsp;understand them.&nbsp;&nbsp;That's why zakar is used instead of iysh, to detail that men should not lie with males as with women, stressing the gender of the person.&nbsp; Also, your cause and effect theory is very interesting, but it doesn't change anything.&nbsp;&nbsp;It would only mean that&nbsp;18:21-22 would be saying, "don't prostitute your children to&nbsp;Molech, because men aren't supposed to have sexual relations&nbsp;with other men."&nbsp; One more thing.&nbsp;&nbsp;Verse 18:23 condemns inappropriate behavior with animals for both men and women.&nbsp; If what you're proposing is true,&nbsp;and&nbsp;18:21-22 are significant for the same reason, then&nbsp;it would make sense that their punishments follow one another in ch.20 just as&nbsp;the punishment for inappropriate behavior with animals&nbsp;follows one another in&nbsp;ch.20,&nbsp;yet they don't.&nbsp; Alluding to the fact that&nbsp;they're two separate things with&nbsp;one common feature: men having sex with each other.&nbsp; This&nbsp;seems to be&nbsp;the abominable profanity of God's name.&nbsp; &nbsp;

4.&nbsp; Again, zakar is used 81 times&nbsp;in the Bible, its form is masculine,&nbsp;not once&nbsp;is it ever used to imply anything&nbsp;other than a person's male gender.&nbsp;&nbsp;

5.&nbsp; No, my point was not that I'd be willing to bet that you'd say "all things in Leviticus" are sins in and of themselves, but that "all things in Leviticus ch.18" are sins in and of themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only&nbsp;prohibitions in&nbsp;Leviticus that are described in context as abominations are&nbsp;in chapter 18, and happen to be sexually explicit.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now I know that you interpret 18:22 as meaning temple prostitution and not homosexual activity, but considering that the gender of the two participants in temple prostitution&nbsp;was&nbsp;both male.&nbsp;&nbsp;And for the sake of any further argument, would you be willing to say that&nbsp;intercourse between two men is a sin in and of itself?

1&nbsp;Corinthians 15:23-24,

Apollo Belvedre
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
Apollo Belvedre:

"You're reading things that aren't there. Remember this is a book of laws, meaning that the laws must be written clear enough so that more than just the author will be able to understand them."

My Response: Actually, there are tons of other areas of the bible that are not easy to understand. Is Leviticus suppose to be the exception?

"That's why zakar is used instead of iysh, to detail that men should not lie with males as with women, stressing the gender of the person."

My Response: I am not disputing the gender of zakar. It is male, but just as #2145 is male, so is #376. The difference between the two is #376 implies any male, while #2145 (zakar), in context,&nbsp;implies a specific male.

" Also, your cause and effect theory is very interesting, but it doesn't change anything. It would only mean that 18:21-22 would be saying, "don't prostitute your children to Molech, because men aren't supposed to have sexual relations with other men."

My Response: This view of yours fits you because it supports your view. Just like me and others, you have to say what supports your view, otherwise you would have to think about what you have been believing for years or was told for years. I understand your view there, but you must know that there are other ways to see it as well. You have to say, "because men aren't supposed to have sexual relations with other men", because any other conlcusion would contradict how you've been interpreting this. Who wants to question their faith or long held views?

"...then it would make sense that their punishments follow one another in ch.20 just as the punishment for inappropriate behavior with animals follows one another in ch.20, yet they don't."

My Response: I just think I nor you can claim to know the author's supposed intent in regards to his method of writing. We really can't claim to know his intention and purposes of writing Leviticus in the way and letter form that he did. Just because in one chapter two verses dealing with this or that follow one another does not mean that if the author brings them up again in another chapter, which seemingly seems to be a chapter that describes the punishments for previously mentioned crimes, that they should be mentioned in the exact same order or fashion as when they were first mentioned.

"Again, zakar is used 81 times in the Bible, its form is masculine, not once is it ever used to imply anything other than a person's male gender."

My Response: I've explained this already!

"The only&nbsp;prohibitions in&nbsp;Leviticus that are described in context as abominations are&nbsp;in chapter 18, and happen to be sexually explicit."

My Response: This does appear to be true, but keep in mind that the bible was not originally written with chapters and verses to separate it as we are more equipt to relating to it. In light of this, check out Leviticus 18:27 and 18:29. Surely, I would think that the author was trying to convey that "whosoever shall commit any of these abomintions...shall be cut off from among their people." My point, that 'any' refers to not just those verses that include the word 'abomination', but to verse 27's reference, and I quote, "For all these abominations have the men of the land done....". This implies not just the sexually related prohibitions, but all prohibitions. For example, Leviticus 7:20, 21, 25, 27, Leviticus 17:9, 10, 14, and&nbsp;Leviticus 19:8. All these are not referencing sex related things, but yet the one who commits these are said to be cut off. Now, if they will be cut of for non-sexual reasons, then Leviticus 18:27 and 29 must be referring to these and all other prohibitions as 'abominations' which will result in being cut off since "whosoever commits any of thes abominations shall be cut off" (Leviticus 18:29).


"...would you be willing to say that intercourse between two men is a sin in and of itself?"

My Response: No, not in and of itself. It does not violate the one law we are to live after: Love thy neighbor as thyself and love the Lord God with all of thine heart, soul, and mind. In the context of Leviticus and my belief that the verses in question are referring to temple prostitutution, this is not in line with loving they&nbsp; neighbor as thyself, as reiterated in Leviticus 19:18. It is using someone for selfish purposes. In this context, it (the ritualistic sex act) is used by the idol worshipper&nbsp;as the means of getting his false god to hear him and answer his prayers. He honors his god this way and his hope is getting his blessings in return.

Always in love,

leecappella
 
Upvote 0
18th April 2003 at 06:34 AM leecappella said this in Post #9

Actually, there are tons of other areas of the bible that are not easy to understand. Is Leviticus suppose to be the exception?

Likewise, there are many areas of the Bible that are candid and concise.&nbsp;&nbsp;Should Leviticus be an exception?&nbsp;

I am not disputing the gender of zakar. It is male, but just as #2145 is male, so is #376. The difference between the two is #376 implies any male, while #2145 (zakar), in context,&nbsp;implies a specific male.

Not necessarily.

This view of yours fits you because it supports your view. Just like me and others, you have to say what supports your view, otherwise you would have to think about what you have been believing for years or was told for years. I understand your view there, but you must know that there are other ways to see it as well. You have to say, "because men aren't supposed to have sexual relations with other men", because any other conlcusion would contradict how you've been interpreting this. Who wants to question their faith or long held views?

You're the one who brought up the "cause and effect" theory.&nbsp; I merely applied it to see if it was sensible or not.


I just think I nor you can claim to know the author's supposed intent in regards to his method of writing. We really can't claim to know his intention and purposes of writing Leviticus in the way and letter form that he did. Just because in one chapter two verses dealing with this or that follow one another does not mean that if the author brings them up again in another chapter, which seemingly seems to be a chapter that describes the punishments for previously mentioned crimes, that they should be mentioned in the exact same order or fashion as when they were first mentioned.

Don't forget that chapters weren't originally a part of the text.&nbsp; Thus Leviticus should be looked upon as a whole and not individual parts.&nbsp; In that case it would make sense that the author list the punishments for crimes committed in a corresponding fashion if he intentionally listed the crimes themselves in a corresponding fashion.&nbsp; And if this isn't the case, then you can't say that 18:21's 18:22's similar placement was done deliberately.&nbsp;

This does appear to be true, but keep in mind that the bible was not originally written with chapters and verses to separate it as we are more equipt to relating to it. In light of this, check out Leviticus 18:27 and 18:29. Surely, I would think that the author was trying to convey that "whosoever shall commit any of these abomintions...shall be cut off from among their people." My point, that 'any' refers to not just those verses that include the word 'abomination', but to verse 27's reference, and I quote, "For all these abominations have the men of the land done....". This implies not just the sexually related prohibitions, but all prohibitions. For example, Leviticus 7:20, 21, 25, 27, Leviticus 17:9, 10, 14, and&nbsp;Leviticus 19:8. All these are not referencing sex related things, but yet the one who commits these are said to be cut off. Now, if they will be cut of for non-sexual reasons, then Leviticus 18:27 and 29 must be referring to these and all other prohibitions as 'abominations' which will result in being cut off since "whosoever commits any of thes abominations shall be cut off" (Leviticus 18:29).

Point noted, but if you take a look at the grouping of the laws and regulations of Leviticus&nbsp;that seem to relate to each other in some way, each&nbsp;of them&nbsp;begins with, "And the Lord spake unto Moses saying..."&nbsp; This is evidence&nbsp;enough for me at least to suggest that the author is indicating that what follows is a group of ordinances that&nbsp;share a commonality with each other.&nbsp; Thus I maintain that the only&nbsp;prohibitions in&nbsp;Leviticus that are described in context as abominations are&nbsp;in chapter 18, and happen to be sexually explicit.

1&nbsp;Corinthians 15:23-24,

Apollo Belvedre
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
Apollo Belvedre:

Now I know what is meant when someone once informed me of not getting too involved in debates. It's is absolutely endless, is it not? I totally respect your view, but remain in my view. I am sure that God is aware of His creations and the fact that we are all unique in many ways, one of those ways being in how we interpret, comprehend, understand, approach, etc. things differently from others. You may get one thing out of a poem while I get something else out of the same poem. A song may speak to you one thing, while it speaks something else to me. You say tomatoe, I say tomahto. You clean the house without dusting. Dusting is included in my cleaning process. You may feel comfortable being on a jury and knowing the facts of a case, while I would be uncomfortable judging a case when I was not present to see absolutely what happened to judge it or the person. I'm sure you get my point.

Love ya!
Leecappella
 
Upvote 0

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
leecappella said:
"...would you be willing to say that intercourse between two men is a sin in and of itself?"

My Response: No, not in and of itself. It does not violate the one law we are to live after: Love thy neighbor as thyself and love the Lord God with all of thine heart, soul, and mind.

I can't help but wonder this to your response LC...

God created Adam... the created a female to provide that companionship for that male. Trying to substitute the female with the male would make the female obsolete (In other words... if it would be okay to have sex with other guys... why create a woman in the first place? Hopefully you'll see my logic here in a minute) God created male and female for a specific purpose and did so intentionally.

Now my pont is this: Isn't it kinda disrespectful to pervert the way God made things? How much "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, strength, and mind" is there in disrespecting His original design?

Thus I conclude that homosexuality does in fact violate the greatest commandment and is therefore sinful.


Now I don't know all about the Hebrew nuances yet.. I'm only 18. But irregardless of how the words were used in that passage, I know my conclusion to be true. How do you justify your thesis under these guidelines?

P.S. -> Just for future reference, you have the order backwards in terms of importance of the law as shown in the quote I provided. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord thy God with all your heart sould strength and mind. And the second is like unto it; love thy neighbor as thyself. And they are two different commandments not one in the same.
 
Upvote 0

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
sbbqb7n16:

It would seem that you and many other Christians view the creation story as having the purpose of establishing the one and only union allowed by God. Is this the purpose of the creations story? Is this why it was written or was it to answer the question, where did we come from? There is no better way to establish and portray where we as humans came from other than presenting the man/woman union which produces the human race. Aside from being initially created by God from dust, the man/woman union answers the question for us concerning where and how the human race goes on. Simply because certain relationships were not present in the creation story does not make those relationships not acceptable to God. It is known as the sin of omission to some. Friendships, for example, are not mentioned in the creation story, but they are not considered relationships that should not be, are they. Whether the author was presenting something similar to his own experience as he knew it or some other reason, the sin of omission or just because something is not mentioned in the story does not automatically make it a sin. So, I do respect your opinion, but I disagree. If one is a homosexual and acts like a heterosexual, is this not more disrespectful to God because he/she is not acting as they were made. What should a hermaphrodite do? Should we seek to find out the race of Adam and Eve and when we discover what it was, then say that it is the only race that can be joined in loving commitement because it was the only race included in the creation story? Your basis for a same sex couple not being mentioned in the creation story brings about these questions, and many more.

In agape love,
leecappella
 
Upvote 0

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then answer this....

Matt*19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
Matt*19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Matt*19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
Matt*19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."


These are the words of Jesus Christ... why doesn't He say that God created male and female so that we could choose, but rather so that a man could leave and have a woman?

Does your "creationist story" theory still hold up? Or do you just not see it yet?

John*3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.


 
Upvote 0

sbbqb7n16

Veteran - Blue Bible Dude
Jan 13, 2002
2,532
177
38
Texas
Visit site
✟25,010.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well you don't seem to want to respond... but I found another wrench in your working.... in good old Romans!

Rom*1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom*1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom*1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom*1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom*1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom*1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Rom*1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Rom*1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Rom*1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom*1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Rom*1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


I even included the idolatry thing for you in here... but if you notice... Paul, in verse 26, makes a distinction between their actions of idolatry and what God gave them over to. Homosexuality (both male and female) are considered "degrading," "indecent", etc. And along with that the passage contains a long list of bad things from v29-32 the contents of which you can't limit only to idol worship no matter how hard you try... and you can't with the homosexualtiy either. It is just wrong in the sight of God. I'm sorry that you don't like that... but that's the truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
sbbqb7n16: Sorry it took so long, but I'm not always on the forum to respond back. As far as Matthew 19 goes, Jesus is aware of the Pharisees' intentions to catch Him in some kind of lie or some other reason to find fault with Him. They want to know is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. The context is divorce. Jesus simply informs them of the scriptures and that 'what God has joined together, let no man put asunder'. The issue is a man leaving his wife for any reason. Genesis 2:23 and 24 refers to the reason why a man and woman are considered one flesh: Because the female came out of the male, they are one in the flesh. Jesus is establishing the oneness of a union and because of that oneness, two should not seek departure from it for any reason. If Genesis 2:24 is suggesting that when a male leaves his parents that he "shall" cleave to a wife or that he will indeed cleave to a wife, it is untrue. Verse 24 seemingly implies that a man will marry a wife when he leaves his parent's home. This is, again, untrue. Jesus confirms this later in Matthew 19. His disciples respond to him with, "If this is the case, it is not good to marry." They find something within Jesus' answer that causes them to respond, paraphrasing, "Well, if that is the case, why marry?" Jesus responds to the disciple's thought of not marrying by addressing the issue of those to whom this context of discussion does not refer to: the eunuchs. The disciples bring up the issue of not marrying at all, and Jesus addresses it by talking about those who do not or will not marry in the context that is being addressed among the disciples and the Phariesees. Again, the issue is not that a man and woman are the only acceptable union. The issue is divorce. Jesus bases His words to the Pharisees and disciples on the scriptures that inform us that because the female came out of the male, the two are one because of that. Because the two are one, they should not be put asunder for any old reason, having been joined together by God. Note that Jesus menetions that God made them male and female. He mentions this in Matthew 19:4, but the issue is not whether or not God made males or female, so Jesus' intent in bringing that fact up was not to prove God as Creator of men and women. That was already known. Jesus was establishing his views on scripture to prove His point of oneness and so He goes back to the creation story to make it because that is where it was first presented. Matthew 19 has nothing to do with the making it clear that the man/woman union is the only acceptable union. The context of the discussion is divorce and when it is permissable. Since the disciples seemingly find it within themselves to react in such a way that makes them not want to marry, Jesus informs them further that what He is saying on the issue does not apply to everyone because everyone will not marry, although Geneisis 2:24 seems to suggest otherwise. I would suggest that you read up on the issue of eunuchs and to whom Jesus is referring to in verse 12. One lexicon defines a eunuch as one who in incapacitated to marriage and or begetting children. It is not simply a man who has been castrated.

In regards to the issue of Romans chapter one, I have placed a few post regarding it. Hopefully, they are still here. Here are a few links:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=26468&page=3&pp=10

http://www.bible-discussion.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=244


In agape love,
leecappella
 
Upvote 0

FOMWatts<><

Follower of the Way
Jan 6, 2002
589
14
42
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟15,970.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'd go to the verse...


2 Timothy 4

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

I would encourage anyone that says homosexual unions or ANY sin is acceptable in God's sight to reevaluate his studying of God's Word and how to handle the Word of Truth.

Blessings,

FOMWatts<><
 
Upvote 0

FOMWatts<><

Follower of the Way
Jan 6, 2002
589
14
42
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟15,970.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
leecappella said:
Just curious Fomwatts about how you think God views slavery? Thanks.

Thanks for be interested! :hug:

First let me define slavery as I define it...It is the state of being subjected to involuntary servitude. It usually included being legally "owned" as property by another person. Slavery in the Biblical world was complx and much different than the slavery of the 18th and 19th century Western world.

Now, slavery in the Bible is more of a social status existing in one of three categories, free, semi-free, and slave. The Old Testament sees salvery as a part of the culture and instead of abolish it it regulates it. Exodus 21, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 are scripture that show these regulations. Also note that in the Bible a slaves freedom could be purchased, and their origin in slavery usually began in a loss of a battle that resulted in their capture and into slavery they went. Depending on where you were from a slave was worth more (ie. a Hebrew slave was worht more and therefore protected and taken better care of). Also the Hebrew slaves were to be released during the Sabbatical and Jubilee year cycles. Inhumane treatment was grounds for release of a slave whereas the slavery in your mind the slave could be beaten to death and no one flinch.

The terminology for slave permeated relational metaphors in Israel. It was adopted as a metaphor to image the believer's relationship to Yaweh and more apporopriately tranlated as servant rather than slave (Jer. 2:14). Leaders such as Moses, Joshua, and David were servants of the Lord. All the citizens of Israel were viewed as servants to their earthly king (1 Samuel 17:8).

In the new testament slavery is also talked about as a part of society because the majority of people in the society were "slaves" to someone and most of the people that listened to Christ were themselves slaves. Jesus never approved or condemned slavery, but used it in many parables because the people He was talking to could relate.

Paul referred to Himself as a slave to Christ in chains. I too have no problem calling myself a slave to Christ. The difference is that picture in your mind of slavery. You are viewing the 18th and 19th century slavery, and that I think it is horrible and the Bible does NOT condone such. I, however, view the actual slavery as it was in the Bible. Men lost battles and were slaves or servants to the victor. They could earn their freedom and were treated with dignity and were released during certain times and their were laws to regulate the treatment of slaves. God never condones slavery in either circumstance, but sees it as a part of the society of people HE CREATED.

All of this info came from the Bible and also a commentary written by Walter A. Elwell Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible pages 740-41. Copywright 1996 by Baker Books.

Blessings,

FOMWatts<><;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

leecappella

&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO
Mar 28, 2003
876
18
54
Visit site
✟8,633.00
Faith
Christian
Fomwatts quote: "Jesus never approved or condemned slavery, but used it in many parables because the people He was talking to could relate."

Me: I am not too familiar with the exact specifics of slavery as it existed in biblical times, but it would seem that no matter how a slave was treated, good or bad, hospitably or not, the common denominator in being a slave was that you were a human owned by another human. In that sense, are you saying that God was not really concerned that humans owned other humans?

Fomwatts quote: "The difference is that picture in your mind of slavery. You are viewing the 18th and 19th century slavery, and that I think it is horrible and the Bible does NOT condone such."

Me: Can you tell me where in the bible is slavery specifically presented to us as being exempt from the slavery as I was thinking of?

Fomwatts quote: "I, however, view the actual slavery as it was in the Bible."

Me: In contrast to that, can you tell me the actual same sex acts as they were in the bible? Were they relationship oriented like in today's world where two persons love God and seek what heterosexual counterparts seek or something else? Thanks again.

In agape love,
leecappella
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.