<SPAN class=postbody>The below information can be found at the following link:
target=_blank>[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:
target=_blank>[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" (Strongs #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>