What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...?

[morningstar2651]

All verses are taken from the KJV.

• Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death
• For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death

Seriously, have you read ALL of Leviticus 20? It's got the part about killing your children, and it's only a few verses before not lying with men. One might think you read it selectively if you didn't know about that verse but knew about the one about men lying with men.

By the way, anybody else notice it lacks a condemnation of lesbians? And the word man doesn't mean human...refer to these two verses from the same chapter of leviticus.

• And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
• And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[KCKID]

All verses are taken from the KJV.

• Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death
• For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death

Seriously, have you read ALL of Leviticus 20? It's got the part about killing your children, and it's only a few verses before not lying with men. One might think you read it selectively if you didn't know about that verse but knew about the one about men lying with men.

By the way, anybody else notice it lacks a condemnation of lesbians? And the word man doesn't mean human...refer to these two verses from the same chapter of leviticus.

• And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
• And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I find it unbelievable the selective vision of some of these forum posters. They would - in all seriousness - throw out ALL of the leviticus 'commands' except the 'man lying' one. This is just ONE of the reasons why a serious debate with them on the issue of homosexuality is not possible.

 

[Morrigu]

BMS,

Be aware of Gay Debate Tactics 101 to derail the thread and spin off topic.

This is the answer to the OP What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...? :

Tactics? lol XD XD XD XD

seriously, i think i admited somewhere that i have problems staying on topic, but i just like to exploit any part of an argumant that i can debate, sometimes i just can't mesure miself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But what does the Bible say, read what the Bible says and see which ones are right.

The point is that not everyone agrees on what the Bible says. Which texts does one include into the document known as "The Bible"? Which translation of this compilation is the 'correct' one? How does one interpret this translation correctly?

For example, some translate and interpret Leviticus 18:22 as a condemnation of male-male sex imitating male-female sex, but others translate and interpret it as a condemnation of male-male sex in a woman's bed (which would otherwise be used for her and her husband).

The Bible is clear about the union of man and woman and not other unions as we have seen from the passages frequently quoted. That some don’t believe what they say is also clear. You tell me whether you think the Bible is anti-gay or pro-gay with the relevant passages to support your view.

As I've maintained, it's not simply a matter of quoting chapter and verse. How are you interpreting the verse (a pertinent question regarding Genesis and Crevo)? How are you translating the verse (pertinent wrt this discussion)? From which Bible are you quoting (the Catholic Bible? Lutheran? Mormon?)?

Which is what it says.

According to you. Others disagree. Who's to say your translation and interpretation of that particular piece of text is correct?

But it doesn’t say that so they aren’t really translating it rather they are mistranslating it.

Says who? The whole point is that translating from Ancient Hebrew to Ye Olde English to Modern English is not the most precise of sciences.

It can be translated
Thou shalt not lie (8799) with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Or
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Now you show me which translation you are referring to, where does it say anything about a woman’s bed?

It's not so much a matter of citing a particular Bible, as it is analysing the text itself. Leviticus 18:22 translates as:

[FONT=&quot]And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the phrase "lay lyings" has no counterpart in English. So various translators have inserter their own phrases in. The KJV adds "as the", to make:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And with a male you shall not lay as the lyings of a woman

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I.e., no male-male sex imitating male-female sex. However, one could just as easily add "of the", yielding:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And with a male you shall not lay in the lyings of a woman

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I.e., no male-male sex where male-female sex occurs.

The choice is arbitrary, but it should be noted that the latter conforms to the theme of Leviticus: keeping to phenomena separate that would individually be deemed OK.
[/FONT]

.
Well Jesus did summerise the law like that but do these people who think this therefore see all the command in Leviticus 18 as appropriate or inappropriate?

Depends. If a particular interpretation of a particular translation of a particular extract from Leviticus 18 does not fall under "Love thy God and love thy neighbour as thyself", then the interpretation/translation/extract is wrong.
So do you have a particular verse that, when you translate and interpret it, find it to be loving to neither your God nor your neighbour?

there are only two, either people believe what the Bible says and the condemnations or they don’t, they don’t even have any scriptures to countenance homosexual practice and unions.

Jonathan and David might have something to say about that. But again, this is just your opinion: there are a plethora despite your insistence.

I asked which translation. But what is your point? I agree these passages show that Jesus takes away sin, are you saying anyone can now do what they want and it isn’t sin?

Possibly. It's your religion, not mine. If you translate and interpret those texts to mean X, then so be it. Other people might not.

For instance, some Christians believe that all people are saved, regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. Some Christians believe that only Christians are saved. Others still believe that only born-again Christians are saved. Still others believe that only their particular cult is saved, and they must commit suicide to do so.

Who is right? You? Them?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child

The point is that not everyone agrees on what the Bible says.

Exactly my point, the ones who are right are the ones who do agree with what the Bible says.
As to the translation and interpretation

For example, some translate and interpret Leviticus 18:22 as a condemnation of male-male sex imitating male-female sex, but others translate and interpret it as a condemnation of male-male sex in a woman's bed

This is a good example as the main Bible versions we have translate as the former, the latter would be a mistranslation, the texts cannot be made to suggest a woman’s bed, they do not.
וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

As I've maintained, it's not simply a matter of quoting chapter and verse. How are you interpreting the verse

Which verse? Without quoting one no-one can interpret it.

It's not so much a matter of citing a particular Bible, as it is analysing the text itself. Leviticus 18:22 translates as:

Ok so even if there were a passage you could provide which supported homosexual practice, you yourself couldn’t guarantee people would translate it the same? So how can you possibly know whats right?

And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman

No it doesn’t that’s a misinterpretation and represents the danger of deception faced by false teaching being presented.

The text says shakab zakar mishkab 'ishshah tow`ebah
to lie down a male a bed/carnal intercourse/lying a woman it is abomination


It should be noted that Leviticus 20:13 makes it clearer that both sh@nayim the man and the man have committed the abomination, nothing to do with the woman’s bed.

The KJV adds "as the", to make:

And with a male you shall not lay as the lyings of a woman

The KJV does not say that its says
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

Depends. If a particular interpretation of a particular translation of a particular extract from Leviticus 18 does not fall under "Love thy God and love thy neighbour as thyself", then the interpretation/translation/extract is wrong.

Sorry but Jesus says the law is summed up by Love the Lord your God and love your neighbour, He doesn’t say that some of the law applies and some doesn’t. So I guess some don’t follow any of it they just have their own ideas.

So do you have a particular verse that, when you translate and interpret it, find it to be loving to neither your God nor your neighbour?

But as we have seen many people don’t think what God thinks is loving is loving, they have their own ideas.

Jonathan and David might have something to say about that. But again, this is just your opinion: there are a plethora despite your insistence.

Well if they do have something to say what is it? Never mind my opinion, tell me what they have to say.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Exactly my point, the ones who are right are the ones who do agree with what the Bible says.

Perhaps, but how do we determine who's got it right? YEC claim the Bible depicts a ~6000 year old Earth, while OEC and gap-theory-ists claim that the Bible allows for (or even depicts) an Earth consistent with the scientific consensus (i.e., ~4.5 billion years old).

So who's right? Both have their own concise exegesis 'supporting' their view, and both say the other is wrong.

As to the translation and interpretation

This is a good example as the main Bible versions we have translate as the former, the latter would be a mistranslation, the texts cannot be made to suggest a woman’s bed, they do not.
וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

Again, you misunderstand. This is just your translation. It is not the only one, nor is it the only valid one. What makes you so sure that this particular translation correctly conveys the message of the text?

Which verse? Without quoting one no-one can interpret it.

I was speaking hypothetically. For any given excerpt, the questions are pertinent.

Ok so even if there were a passage you could provide which supported homosexual practice, you yourself couldn’t guarantee people would translate it the same? So how can you possibly know whats right?

My point exactly. All we have is a large chunk of text written in Hebrew and Koine Greek (and not everyone agrees which texts should be counted as 'The' text; compare Catholic and Lutheran Bibles).

No it doesn’t that’s a misinterpretation

According to who? You?

and represents the danger of deception faced by false teaching being presented.

Which could easily be said about your preferred translation.

The text says shakab zakar mishkab 'ishshah tow`ebah
to lie down a male a bed/carnal intercourse/lying a woman it is abomination

to lie down a male a bed/carnal intercourse/lying a woman it is abomination
It should be noted that Leviticus 20:13 makes it clearer that both sh@nayim the man and the man have committed the abomination, nothing to do with the woman’s bed.

Actually, Leviticus 20:13 makes explicit mention of beds:

"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them"

The KJV does not say that its says
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

Nevertheless, the arbitrary phrase has been inserted. "As with" is not seen in the Hebrew.

Sorry but Jesus says the law is summed up by Love the Lord your God and love your neighbour, He doesn’t say that some of the law applies and some doesn’t. So I guess some don’t follow any of it they just have their own ideas.

The whole point is that the laws you perceive to be written in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not actually there: Jesus says the law is summed up by "Love thy God and thy neighbour as thyself", yet your perceived laws do not fall within this summation.

That is, your anti-gay translation &interpretation of the texts in question disagree with Jesus' own teachings about how one interprets the law .

But as we have seen many people don’t think what God thinks is loving is loving, they have their own ideas.

Which begs the question: how do we determine what God thinks is loving?

Well if they do have something to say what is it? Never mind my opinion, tell me what they have to say.

Some people claim the story of Jonathan and David to depict them as in a romantic relationship, even married. Others as merely good friends. Who's right?

 

[Maren]

To Wiccan_Child
Exactly my point, the ones who are right are the ones who do agree with what the Bible says.

As has been noted, the Bible has to be translated from languages that are thousands of years old. There is disagreement as to how we should translate these languages, since the words and phrases have shifted from the the way they were used millennia ago.

As to the translation and interpretation
This is a good example as the main Bible versions we have translate as the former, the latter would be a mistranslation, the texts cannot be made to suggest a woman’s bed, they do not.
וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

False. As you noted, one of the Hebrew words is mishkab, which per Strongs is translated as: "4904 mishkab mish-kawb' from 7901; a bed (figuratively, a bier); abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse:--bed((-chamber)), couch, lieth (lying) with." While the word literally means "layings", what was meant by the word in the Bible is bed. It occasionally is used to infer sex in the same way we in English sometimes talk of 'bedding' someone.

Which verse? Without quoting one no-one can interpret it.

I believe the point is that if you truly want to understand the Bible, you must look at every verse in the original language. A good example is the word toebah; while translated as "abomination", that is a poor translation based on the modern English definition of the word. Study Hebrew and you will find it means something more like a cultural prohibition or taboo.

Ok so even if there were a passage you could provide which supported homosexual practice, you yourself couldn’t guarantee people would translate it the same? So how can you possibly know whats right?

This is exactly why we have multiple translations of the Bible, and why so many Christians believe reading the Bible in the original language is the only way to truly understand it.

No it doesn’t that’s a misinterpretation and represents the danger of deception faced by false teaching being presented.

The text says shakab zakar mishkab 'ishshah tow`ebah
to lie down a male a bed/carnal intercourse/lying a woman it is abomination

No, the actual transliterated Hebrew is, "eth zakar lo shakab mishkab ishshah toebah hu". This literally translates to, "with/by/among male not lay/rest/sex layings/bed/sex woman abomination is". With the multiple meanings for at least three of the words, not to mention the lack of punctionation and the rather odd word placement, this verse is a great example of why translations can vary so much. And, if you notice, a literal translation is, "with man not lay layings woman abomination is", which is basically what Wiccan Child said.

It should be noted that Leviticus 20:13 makes it clearer that both sh@nayim the man and the man have committed the abomination, nothing to do with the woman’s bed.

Again, the word you are trying to translate as having sex with a woman actually means bed, sex is merely one possible interpretation. And I didn't see where anyone claimed that both weren't committing the abomination.

The KJV does not say that its says
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

Sorry but Jesus says the law is summed up by Love the Lord your God and love your neighbour, He doesn’t say that some of the law applies and some doesn’t. So I guess some don’t follow any of it they just have their own ideas.

So you don't cut your hair, you stone disobedient children and those caught in sexual sins, you give your offering of burnt flesh on the altar of the Lord, eat shellfish, etc?

But as we have seen many people don’t think what God thinks is loving is loving, they have their own ideas.

Well if they do have something to say what is it? Never mind my opinion, tell me what they have to say.

Exactly, your beliefs are your opinion and may or may not be what God thinks.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

As has been noted, the Bible has to be translated from languages that are thousands of years old. There is disagreement as to how we should translate these languages, since the words and phrases have shifted from the the way they were used millennia ago.

As has been noted the Bible has been translated from languages that are thousands of years old, plenty of translations over the years in fact. There is no magnitude of disagreement you claim, and indeed the translations all pretty much say the same thing. Sorry but I think the generalisation you are making would render all translation useless.

False. As you noted, one of the Hebrew words is mishkab, which per Strongs is translated as: "

4904 mishkab mish-kawb' from 7901; a bed (figuratively, a bier); abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse:--bed((-chamber)), couch, lieth (lying) with." While the word literally means "layings", what was meant by the word in the Bible is bed. It occasionally is used to infer sex in the same way we in English sometimes talk of 'bedding' someone.

What I gave was not false, it was Strongs. So first tell me where you got your translation ‘layings’ from before you try and insist it is the best translated word. Secondly refer to Leviticus 20:13 for a clearer understanding that this refers to man with man and not a woman’s bed. “If a man also lie with mankind, as ‘layings’ with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. Clearly this has nothing to do with a woman’s bed. See also the translations from the Greek Septuagint.

Again, the word you are trying to translate as having sex with a woman actually means bed, sex is merely one possible interpretation. And I didn't see where anyone claimed that both weren't committing the abomination.

Again you are trying to make out I am doing something different to what I have said. It isn’t the bed that is put to death it is the man with the man instead of with the woman.

So you don't cut your hair, you stone disobedient children and those caught in sexual sins, you give your offering of burnt flesh on the altar of the Lord, eat shellfish, etc?

You would know I don’t because I have already demonstrated that Christians are not subject to the law. Do you? Do you keep all the law or do you disregard it all?

Exactly, your beliefs are your opinion and may or may not be what God thinks.

I repeat my question, if they do have something to say what is it? I meant what do they have to say from the Bible, then we can see whether either your beliefs and opinions or mine are in line with God’s.

 

[OllieFranz]

To Wiccan_Child
Exactly my point, the ones who are right are the ones who do agree with what the Bible says.

There is a big difference between agreeing with what the Bible says and agreeing on what the Bible says. You are distorting the btruth when you say that all of your opponents disagree with what the Bible says. Many of the believe the Bible just as much as you do, but they understand the Bible to be teaching something different.

As to the translation and interpretation
This is a good example as the main Bible versions we have translate as the former, the latter would be a mistranslation, the texts cannot be made to suggest a woman’s bed, they do not.
וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

While I agree that in this verse "bed" is not the best way to understand "mishkab," there are too many verses where that is exactly what is meant to dismiss it without investigation. I can't entirely dismiss the possibility even after investigation. Verses where "mishkab" is intended to mean bed include: Genesis 49:9,Exodus 8:3, Exodus 21:18, Leviticus 15:4-26, 2 Samuel 4:5-11, 2 Samuel 11:2-13, 2 Samuel 13:5, and that is less than half. In fact, in 38 out of 46 verses, "mishkab" means "bed," or "lying in bed for rest," as opposed to five (including the two Leviticus verses in question) where it means or may mean "to have sex."

Consider the same problem in the other direction from Job 7:13a which is translated in the AV as: "When I say, My bed shall comfort me." Is Job saying that he feels better when he lies down, or when he has sex? In this case, the rest of the verse, where he says his couch also comforts him makes it clearer.

 

[Maren]

To Maren,
As has been noted the Bible has been translated from languages that are thousands of years old, plenty of translations over the years in fact. There is no magnitude of disagreement you claim, and indeed the translations all pretty much say the same thing. Sorry but I think the generalisation you are making would render all translation useless.

Depends on the verses, and even the language of the translations. However, it doesn't make translations useless; instead this is the reason many Christians choose to read/compare Bible translations and to attempt to learn Hebrew and Koine Greek.

What I gave was not false, it was Strongs. So first tell me where you got your translation ‘layings’ from before you try and insist it is the best translated word.

I never said that "layings" was the best translation, I said it was literally what the word means. As an example, the word "kindergarten" which is originally a German word, is literally translated as "children garden", yet that is not its definition or the way it is translated. Instead, I said that it typically means "bed" in the Bible (as OllieFranz pointed out)

Secondly refer to Leviticus 20:13 for a clearer understanding that this refers to man with man and not a woman’s bed. “If a man also lie with mankind, as ‘layings’ with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Again, sorry, but no. There are no words "a" or "as" in Hebrew, those were put in so that it would make sense in English, plus the wording is in a different order in Hebrew. Again, a direct translation of Lev 20:13 (without adding the extra English words), "man if lay with man bed woman abomination commit both they shall die their blood upon them".

Clearly this has nothing to do with a woman’s bed. See also the translations from the Greek Septuagint.

Nope, a woman's bed is a possible translation, as shown above.

Again you are trying to make out I am doing something different to what I have said. It isn’t the bed that is put to death it is the man with the man instead of with the woman.

No one said anything about the bed being put to death. Rather, the verse could easily be interpreted to say that two men should not have sex in a woman's (or wife, since that is also a translation of "ishshah") bed. If that is actually what God meant, it is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of adultery.

Other Biblical scholors believe that it is talking of sex with "temple prostitutes" (to borrow from translations of Deuteronomy). At least part of this argument is that while other death penalty sins are repeated in Deuteronomy, there is no mention of homosexuality. Instead, the death penalty in Deuteronomy that doesn't have a match in Leviticus is for those who have sex with pagan temple prostitutes.

You would know I don’t because I have already demonstrated that Christians are not subject to the law. Do you? Do you keep all the law or do you disregard it all?
I repeat my question, if they do have something to say what is it? I meant what do they have to say from the Bible, then we can see whether either your beliefs and opinions or mine are in line with God’s.

Nope, I don't follow the Law of Moses but, then again, I don't condemn others for not following it. So why is it if you claim that Christians are not subject to the law, and that you do not keep the law, that you are condemning homosexuals for not following the law (these two verses in Leviticus)?

 

[lumlite]

A quick question, hopefully I won't take us too far off track.

I keep seeing "Zakar" translated as "with mankind", but I thought it meant "remembered".

http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02142

Am I misunderstanding the usage?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

"man if lay with man bed woman abomination commit both they shall die their blood upon them".

Not really a possible translation. Nor one you will find in the Bible
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them

If a man [0376] 'iysh also lie [07901] shakab with mankind, [02145] zakar as he lieth [04904] mishkab
with a woman, [0802] 'ishshah both [08147] sh@nayim of them have committed [06213] `asah an abomination: [08441] tow`ebah they shall surely [04191] muwth be put to death; [04191] muwth
their blood [01818] dam [shall be] upon them.

Other Biblical scholors believe that it is talking of sex with "temple prostitutes" (to borrow from translations of Deuteronomy).

Well they must be truly great scholars as anyone who can merely read can see the chapters conclude that pagans do such things.
But there is mention of men lying with men instead of women, I am not sure what you mean bu homosexuality therefore

Nope, I don't follow the Law of Moses but, then again, I don't condemn others for not following it.

Neither do I so what was your point in asking me whether I followed it?

So why is it if you claim that Christians are not subject to the law,

Because Jesus Christ’s NT teaching says we aren’t. What gave you the idea we were?

and that you do not keep the law, that you are condemning homosexuals for not following the law (these two verses in Leviticus)?

I am not condemning homosexuals I am referring to the word of God, why are you denying the word of God.?
The Bible condemns homosexual practice,. the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 are just two examples.God made male and female not heterosexual and homosexual, heterosexual and homosexual are useless when addressing and understanding what God’s word in the Bible says. The reason God made male and female was so that man and woman should be united. Man and man is error. A Man cannot leave his father an father and be united with his husband, its nonsense.

 

[Maren]

A quick question, hopefully I won't take us too far off track.

I keep seeing "Zakar" translated as "with mankind", but I thought it meant "remembered".

http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02142

Am I misunderstanding the usage?

Actually, there are two words: "eth" is translated as "with" and then "zakar" literally means remembered one and is translated as "male" or "mankind".

 

[brightmorningstar]

So if a man lie with remembered as with a woman both shall be put to death.?

I suggest you cant really weasel out out what the Bible says.

 

[Maren]

To Maren,

Not really a possible translation. Nor one you will find in the Bible
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them

If a man [0376] 'iysh also lie [07901] shakab with mankind, [02145] zakar as he lieth [04904] mishkab
with a woman, [0802] 'ishshah both [08147] sh@nayim of them have committed [06213] `asah an abomination: [08441] tow`ebah they shall surely [04191] muwth be put to death; [04191] muwth
their blood [01818] dam [shall be] upon them.

It appears you are using an English translation that shows the Hebrew words. The problem is that they are out of order from the way they are written in Hebrew. Instead, the transliterated Hebrew (without the death penalty portion) is "V'ish [376] asher [834] yishkav [7901] et [854] zachar [2145] mishk'vei [4904] ishah [802] to'evah [8441] asu [6213] shneihem [8147]". Again, directly translates to, "man if lay with man bed woman abomination commit both". When you look at the verse in the original language, and not the original words from the view of an English translation, it makes a lot of difference.

Well they must be truly great scholars as anyone who can merely read can see the chapters conclude that pagans do such things.
But there is mention of men lying with men instead of women, I am not sure what you mean bu homosexuality therefore

There are many condemnations of heterosexual sex in the Bible, do we therefore conclude that all heterosexual sex is a sin?

Neither do I so what was your point in asking me whether I followed it?
Because Jesus Christ’s NT teaching says we aren’t. What gave you the idea we were?
I am not condemning homosexuals I am referring to the word of God, why are you denying the word of God.?

No, I'm not denying the Bible. I won't call the Bible "God's" word since John 1 makes it clear the Word of God is Christ. So are you denying the Bible when you eat shellfish, cut your hair, or give offerings of burnt flesh are you denying what the Bible says? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of referring to the Law, which you admit you don't follow because it is no longer in effect, to claim others are sinning. Either you follow the Law as laid out in Leviticus or you don't, you can't pick and choose which verses you believe should be followed.

The Bible condemns homosexual practice,. the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20 are just two examples.God made male and female not heterosexual and homosexual, heterosexual and homosexual are useless when addressing and understanding what God’s word in the Bible says. The reason God made male and female was so that man and woman should be united. Man and man is error. A Man cannot leave his father an father and be united with his husband, its nonsense.

So you claim. Unfortunately the Bible never states this. The closest you can come is by using a logical fallacy, an argument from silence.

 

[Maren]

So if a man lie with remembered as with a woman both shall be put to death.?

I suggest you cant really weasel out out what the Bible says.

Only if you reorder the words as they are currently ordered in the English, and add a few words that aren't in the original Hebrew. Again, in the original order and taking out the words that aren't there you have, "man if lay with man bed woman abomination commit both". You are using a circular argument basically, using the English translation of the text to prove the English translation is correct.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren,

Actually a better translation than yours would be
man if lay with man laying woman abomination commit both
So which are the both, the laying of man and woman or the laying of man and man. It couldn’t be clearer.

There are many condemnations of heterosexual sex in the Bible, do we therefore conclude that all heterosexual sex is a sin?

that’s my point, sex in the Bible is for man and woman in faithfll marriage as soon as one uses the modern concepts homosexual and heterosexual which cuts across the Biblicla truth there is confusion.

No, I'm not denying the Bible. I won't call the Bible "God's" word since John 1 makes it clear the Word of God is Christ.

then you are denying the Bible as the Word is Christ as opposed to word of God which Jesus Christ the Word uses and describes.

So are you denying the Bible when you eat shellfish, cut your hair, or give offerings of burnt flesh are you denying what the Bible says?

No I am living it out because that’s the OT covenant which is fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Bible says through faith in Christ we are no longer under obligation of the law but under grace. What you are doing is trying to use some of the Bible against the rest. I don’t follow the law I follow the fulfilment of the law.

suggest make out I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of referring to the Law, which you admit you don't follow because it is no longer in effect, to claim others are sinning.

No all I have done is argue what the law says, you have assumed it condemns people, that’s your problem not mine.

Either you follow the Law as laid out in Leviticus or you don't, you can't pick and choose which verses you believe should be followed.

I follow Jesus Christ who is the fulfilment of the law so don’t ask me to follow the law. Do you understand?
Now from what you have said so far I detect you follow your own law, if you think it is loving you think its ok. You say you don’t follow the law of Moses, and so from that one could assume you consider bestiality, incest and men with men on women’s beds from Leviticus 18 & 20 are ok, but I detect that you only consider those acceptable where you consider them loving.

So you claim.

So a man can leave his father and father ? Sorry but I think the reality is two people of the same sex cant reproduce.

Unfortunately the Bible never states this.

Yes it does. Read it! Dont try and make out the Bible doesnt say what it says because you dont agree with the translation.

The closest you can come is by using a logical fallacy, an argument from silence.

As you want accept the Biblical account you have no argument thus you make baseless claims about your opponent. This is why this issue is so divisive people simply will not accept the truth.

 

[Maren]

To Maren,

Actually a better translation than yours would be
man if lay with man laying woman abomination commit both
So which are the both, the laying of man and woman or the laying of man and man. It couldn’t be clearer.

Sorry, but rearranging the words to attempt to make it closer to what you want it to say does not make it a better translation.

that’s my point, sex in the Bible is for man and woman in faithfll marriage as soon as one uses the modern concepts homosexual and heterosexual which cuts across the Biblicla truth there is confusion.

So denying that homosexuals exist is somehow better?

then you are denying the Bible as the Word is Christ as opposed to word of God which Jesus Christ the Word uses and describes.

I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here. It appears you are trying to twist words around to claim I'm denying your beliefs.

No I am living it out because that’s the OT covenant which is fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Bible says through faith in Christ we are no longer under obligation of the law but under grace. What you are doing is trying to use some of the Bible against the rest. I don’t follow the law I follow the fulfilment of the law.

No, again, that is what you are doing. If you are going to use Leviticus to define sin, then you need to also accept that eating shellfish is an abomination and cutting hair is sinful. Instead, you want to ignore the things Leviticus says are sins which you do but still use it to define the things you don't like as sin.

No all I have done is argue what the law says, you have assumed it condemns people, that’s your problem not mine.

Umm... I said, "I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of referring to the Law, which you admit you don't follow because it is no longer in effect, to claim others are sinning." I don't see where I assume that it condemns people. Are you claiming that you are not trying to use Leviticus to show homosexuality is sinful? And if not, what is the point of our discussion?

I follow Jesus Christ who is the fulfilment of the law so don’t ask me to follow the law. Do you understand?

I've not asked you to follow the Law. Instead, I've shown the hypocrisy of claiming that we no longer are under the Law, but still using the Law to call homosexuals sinners.

Now from what you have said so far I detect you follow your own law, if you think it is loving you think its ok. You say you don’t follow the law of Moses, and so from that one could assume you consider bestiality, incest and men with men on women’s beds from Leviticus 18 & 20 are ok, but I detect that you only consider those acceptable where you consider them loving.

We're not talking about what I might believe, so I don't see where that is even an issue other than to derail our conversation. We're talking about the Bible, how it is translated, and in particular about the verses in Leviticus that are believed to mention homosexuality.

So a man can leave his father and father ? Sorry but I think the reality is two people of the same sex cant reproduce.

I don't see where this matters as far as our discussion. Is it a sin for Christian couples to not have kids?

Yes it does. Read it! Dont try and make out the Bible doesnt say what it says because you dont agree with the translation.

I have read it. I've done some studying of Hebrew and Greek as well. I really don't think God intends us to shut our minds off and just accept what people tell us the Bible "clearly says". If we did, we'd still all believe the sun revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, that slavery is acceptable, that segregation is God's plan, etc. All of these things were once accepted as things the Bible "clearly says".

As you want accept the Biblical account you have no argument thus you make baseless claims about your opponent. This is why this issue is so divisive people simply will not accept the truth.

The fact that you are making an argument from silence is not a baseless claim, rather it is a common error people make; a logical fallacy. And perhaps the reason the issue is divisive is, much like slavery and segregation, it is the "truth" that those who hold to tradition are rejecting.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Maren

Sorry, but rearranging the words to attempt to make it closer to what you want it to say does not make it a better translation.

Sorry but I have not re-arranged, I have merely replaced laying for bed. If you now wish to dispute the word ‘both’ to suit your agenda please do so, but if not tell me which the both refers to.

So denying that homosexuals exist is somehow better?

People have same sex attraction of course, as long as one is using the word correctly. But where have I denied homosexuals exist?

I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here.

I know otherwise you wouldn’t have made your comment. I refered to the word of God which Jesus who is called the Word of God refers to.

No, again, that is what you are doing. If you are going to use Leviticus to define sin, then you need to also accept that eating shellfish is an abomination and cutting hair is sinful. Instead, you want to ignore the things Leviticus says are sins which you do but still use it to define the things you don't like as sin.

No I don’t because Jesus has fulfilled the law in a number of ways. For example Jesus NT teaching says it no longer matters what we eat or wear Mark 7, Romans 12, those codes are no longer binding; we no longer have to make sacrifices as Jesus has become the sacrifice once and for all. But Jesus Christ’s NT teaching does affirm man and woman Matt 19, Eph 5/Gen 2 and love ones neighbour Matthew 19/Leviticus 19, and homosexual prohibitions 1 Cor 6/Lev 18.
I hope that is clear to you now.

Umm... I said, "I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of referring to the Law, which you admit you don't follow because it is no longer in effect, to claim others are sinning."

Ok so my comments above should clear that up, I am following Jesus Christ’s fulfilment of the law, if you think Jesus Christ is hypocracy the ok.

Are you claiming that you are not trying to use Leviticus to show homosexuality is sinful? And if not, what is the point of our discussion?

I am using Leviticus to show homosexual practice is sinful but under your persecution complex any sin pointed out would immediately condemn everyone who did it. Don’t you know that in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation, He came to save not condemn. But Jesus cites Leviticus 19 to love ones neighbour, you see the focus is Jesus Christ.

but still using the Law to call homosexuals sinners.

I don’t cal homosexuals sinners I point out the Bible, including Leviticus 18 and 20 calls homosexual practice sin. And seeing as you are so bothered about what Leviticus 18 and 20 says you must also be bothered about it, otherwise if you didn’t believe it you wouldn’t be bothered.

We're not talking about what I might believe, so I don't see where that is even an issue other than to derail our conversation.

Well you have already offered this explanation and asked me about my approach to the OT law so yes I am talking about this.

We're talking about the Bible, how it is translated, and in particular about the verses in Leviticus that are believed to mention homosexuality.

Well they don’t mention homosexuality, homosexuality is same-sex attraction, what the Bible mentions is homosexual practice which is men with men instead of women. Infact what you are saying is you don’t accept the Bible translations are correct, the Bible translations do say men with men instead of women is error and a man shall not lie with mankind as with a woman.

I don't see where this matters as far as our discussion. Is it a sin for Christian couples to not have kids?

It matters because two men cant produce kids between them.

I have read it. I've done some studying of Hebrew and Greek as well. I really don't think God intends us to shut our minds off and just accept what people tell us the Bible "clearly says".

Well that basically confirms what I said,

If we did, we'd still all believe the sun revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, that slavery is acceptable, that segregation is God's plan, etc. All of these things were once accepted as things the Bible "clearly says".

Or alternatively if we had understood the Bible properly we would never have had those ideas. Can you show me the Bible verses which say that the earth is flat and there should be segregation. Also where the slave trade is acceptable; slavery by the way is acceptable as we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.

The fact that you are making an argument from silence is not a baseless claim, rather it is a common error people make; a logical fallacy.

Which is a false claim as I am not making an argument from silence. I have shown about a dozen passages that I believe clearly obviously and unambiguously exclude and condemn homosexual practice and unions. Whether you reject them or not is irrelevant to the fact I believe them. What you need to do is come up with some passages that countenance homosexual practice and I’ll tell you whether I accept or reject them. But by accusing me of arguing from silence you are actually accusing me of the failing you alone are making.

 

[OllieFranz]

OK, since you conveniently keep missing Maren's point, let me try to get at the point by asking a totally different question. You tell us that you can ignore some commands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy because they were fulfilled in Jesus. You also tell us that other commands are still in effect, even for Christians. For example Leviticus 18 and 20 which have the "homosexual acts" commandments which you say still apply, also forbids sleeping with a woman (including your wife) when she is in her niddah, a command that most in your camp do not believe applies any more. On what basis was that decided? Where in the Bible is the passage that tells you that?

Note: I am not asking for the verses that say that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and that, for example, pork and seafood are OK to eat now. I can find those passages in Acts and in Paul's letters easily enough. I am asking for the verses that say Jesus only fulfilled part of the Law, and that we must earn our salvation by fulfilling the other part. I can't find any. Instead I find:

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (1 Corinthians 10:23)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; (2 Corinthians 5:18)

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (Titus 1:15)

and on the flip side:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:1-5)

and finally:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4)

The first group of verses tell us that all of the written Law no longer has dominion over believers. The Galatians passage tells us that if we insist on being any little part of the Law, we agree to be under the whole Law, and we are not of Christ. And the last one tells us that Jesus fulfilled the whole of the Law.