Queen James Bible

All things philosophical, related to belief and / or religions of any and all sorts.
Personal philosophy welcomed.
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Sorry but I did not connect your post to Grossdad's first (about to'ebah) but to his second about sheol which immediately preceded yours I believe.

However, apparently your conclusion now is incorrect:

ABOMINATION:
Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity.
(1) (to'ebah): . . . . Sexual transgression is particularly denounced as an Abomination (to'ebah) (Deut. xxii. 5, xxiii. 19 [18, A. V.], xxiv. 4); especially incest and unnatural offenses (Lev. xviii. and xx.): "For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, and the land became defiled; lest the land vomit you out also when ye defile it" (Lev. xviii. 27, 28, Heb.; compare also Ezek. viii. 15 and elsewhere
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... bomination

NIV translates:
Deut 22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this
Generally ignored by modern Christians

Deut 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both
Not related to homosexuality

Deut 24:4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Not related to homosexuality

Lev 18:18 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
"detestable" supports Gross Dad's interpretation.

Lev 18:27-28 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
All what things? Oh:

Leviticus 18 (New International Version)
Page Options

Leviticus 18

New International Version (NIV)
Unlawful Sexual Relations

18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Well we are discovering that the original Hebrew is different from the English translation so I would be interested to see what it actually says (although there is a lot about bestiality and incest and not much about homosexual conduct)

Lev 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
Well this does appear to be direct. Again, I would be interested to hear the Hebrew version.

User avatar
GrossDad
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by GrossDad »

From the article at the Huffington Post that I originally linked to, these are the authors' translations of the two Leviticus provisions in question:
"You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to'ebah" (offensive thing)
(Leviticus 18:22).

"And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to'ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them"
(Leviticus 20:13).
Note that the authors' conclusion--that homosexuality is forbidden because it is offensive to "some," but not to "God", and that the prohibition might therefore disappear under the right circumstances--is not peculiar to homosexuality, but to any act that the Torah describes as "to'ebah", but not "to'ebah YHWH". That is why comparison of these passages with other passages in which the word "to-ebah" appears can be helpful in understanding the prohibitions they set out. It doesn't matter that those other passages don't address homosexuality; it matters only that they share the word "to-ebah", and that a distinction exists between "to-ebah" and "to-ebah YHWH".
Be excellent to each other--and, party on, dudes!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

I'll repeat the words from the Jewish source that I quoted at length (and rubato, I only gave the NIV translations of the specific verses mentioned in the Jewish link; whether they were to do with homosexuality or not. I'm not particularly interested in that subject per se but in the use of the word and what it means)
ABOMINIATION. to-ebah. Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity
The above is from a Jewish article about the Jewish language of the OT.

The rest of the article deals with two other terms - also translated 'abomination' - which are of lesser or more narrow Hebraic meaning than to-ebah. Here is the rest of the article:

2) (sheḳeẓ) or (shiḳḳuẓ): Expresses detestation, or a detestable thing of a somewhat less degree of horror or religious awe; also rendered "Abomination" in the Authorized Version of the Bible. It is applied to prohibited animals (Lev. xi. 10-13, 20, 23, 41, 42; Isa. lxvi. 17; Ezek. viii. 10): "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable" (Lev. xi. 43). But it is also used for that which should be held as detestable; often parallel to or together with to'ebah and applied to idols and idolatrous practises (Deut. xxix. 17; Hosea, ix. 10; Jer. iv. 1, xiii. 27, xvi. 18; Ezek. xi. 18-21, xx. 7, 8). See especially Milcom, "the detestable thing of the Ammonites," the god of the Ammonites (I Kings, xi. 5), used exactly as to'ebah in the passages referred to above (see also Abomination of Desolation).

(3) (piggul): Unclean, putrid; used only for sacrificial flesh that has become stale and tainted (Lev. vii. 18, xix. 7; Ezek. iv. 14; Isa. lxv. 4); compare leḥem megoal, "the loathsome bread," from gaal, "to loathe" (Mal. i. 7). For the later rabbinic
conception of piggul, see Sacrifice.

It's very interesting - thanks GRD and rubato
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
GrossDad
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by GrossDad »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I'll repeat the words from the Jewish source that I quoted at length (and rubato, I only gave the NIV translations of the specific verses mentioned in the Jewish link; whether they were to do with homosexuality or not. I'm not particularly interested in that subject per se but in the use of the word and what it means)
ABOMINIATION. to-ebah. Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity
The above is from a Jewish article about the Jewish language of the OT.
I will take the word of the two authors of The Bible Now over that of the authors of the Jewish Encyclopedia--Richard Elliott Friedman, in particular, is as well-versed as anyone alive in the understanding and interpretation of biblical Hebrew--and, given (i) the general principle in Jewish exegesis that no word in the Bible is extraneous, the fact that some acts are declared to be "to'ebah", while others are "to'ebah YHWH", so as to indicate that there is a distinction between the two, and (ii) the fact that "to'ebah" is used in other contexts (mentioned in the article I linked to) that clearly cannot mean "offensive to the Deity"--for example, the usages in the story of Joseph--I think that Friedman and Dolansky have the better argument.
Be excellent to each other--and, party on, dudes!

User avatar
GrossDad
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by GrossDad »

Another take on to-ebah: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm

Interesting, as this cites notes, that of the 613 commandments traditionally cited by Judaism as being contained in the Torah, Christians seem to find only 12 of any significance:
Of the 613 laws, most Christian denominations regard very few as binding on Christians today. Conservative Christians often accept:
  • the Ten Commandments found in three places -- one of them being Exodus 20:3-17.
  • Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 which relate to sexual behavior of two men.
ETA (from the same site): Many Christians also accept laws that prohibit:
  • Sexual contact between individuals who are too closely related,
  • Bestiality: out-of-species sexual contact,
  • Adulltery, and
  • Some laws regarding the execution of properly convicted murderers.
For the record, Judaism does not accord the same pride of place to the "10 Commandments" as do most Christian denominations.
Be excellent to each other--and, party on, dudes!

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by rubato »

Looking ahead, the christian community has a looming issue to deal with in how homosexuality is treated. One path might be a re-evaluation of the texts which have traditionally been used to support the idea that homosexuality is inherently evil, against god's law. If the texts were wrongly interpreted before and now represent something more like a time-dependent cultural bias then that could be a very good way of making it possible for homosexuals to exist in the church.

But if this method fails then they have to find a way to reconcile a god who made people gay and them damned them for being how he made them; tough to reconcile with the idea of a loving god.

The above contributions from GrossDad make me hopeful, anyway.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

rubato wrote: But if this method fails then they have to find a way to reconcile a god who made people gay and them damned them for being how he made them; tough to reconcile with the idea of a loving god.
rubato that's really a non-starter as it is totally at variance with any Christian claim. It's also an anti-theistic claim far older than controversy over homosexuality. You may as well say that "God makes people adulterers" and "God makes people tax-cheats" and "God makes people liars" etc. so therefore society (let alone the church) should of course tolerate and accept people who enjoy doing those kinds of things.

All humans are defective sinners. All are heading for damnation (if that's the word to use for total and eternal separation from God). Salvation through Christ is available to all who truly believe, repent and truly reject sin. Nobody is perfect on this earth, even saved people, but the difference between the saved and the damnd is the inner motivation - a Spirit led desire to stop sinning or a self-led desire to continue. Some choose one - some choose the other.

And on the other subject of interpreting scripture, the Christian canon is not restricted to the OT. Christianity itself was once regarded, by the Jewish Jerusalem adherents and by their opponents both, as being a kind of Jewish variant. Paul, himself a Jew and a rabbi and probably more aware of the Hebrew language of the Pentateuch than anyone alive today, was not exactly a "Christian" in the meaning that is being used today. So I believe that when God says X is abominable, whether in the OT or the NT, then He doesn't mean "well it's really OK with me but you chaps should not tolerate it for a while". He means "X is abominable" to Him too.

Of course, those who believe that the Bible is not inspired are free to toss around whatever new interpetation that they find compatible with their modern opinions - and can build great edifices of argument to demonstrate their own inspired correctness.

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by Gob »

MajGenl.Meade wrote: It's also an anti-theistic claim far older than controversy over homosexuality. You may as well say that "God makes people adulterers" and "God makes people tax-cheats" and "God makes people liars" etc. so therefore society (let alone the church) should of course tolerate and accept people who enjoy doing those kinds of things.
So your fall back position is that being gay is a choice? Really? Come off it Meade. :beat
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
rubato wrote: But if this method fails then they have to find a way to reconcile a god who made people gay and them damned them for being how he made them; tough to reconcile with the idea of a loving god.
rubato that's really a non-starter as it is totally at variance with any Christian claim. It's also an anti-theistic claim far older than controversy over homosexuality. You may as well say that "God makes people adulterers" and "God makes people tax-cheats" and "God makes people liars" etc. so therefore society (let alone the church) should of course tolerate and accept people who enjoy doing those kinds of things.

All humans are defective sinners. All are heading for damnation (if that's the word to use for total and eternal separation from God). Salvation through Christ is available to all who truly believe, repent and truly reject sin. Nobody is perfect on this earth, even saved people, but the difference between the saved and the damnd is the inner motivation - a Spirit led desire to stop sinning or a self-led desire to continue. Some choose one - some choose the other.

And on the other subject of interpreting scripture, the Christian canon is not restricted to the OT. Christianity itself was once regarded, by the Jewish Jerusalem adherents and by their opponents both, as being a kind of Jewish variant. Paul, himself a Jew and a rabbi and probably more aware of the Hebrew language of the Pentateuch than anyone alive today, was not exactly a "Christian" in the meaning that is being used today. So I believe that when God says X is abominable, whether in the OT or the NT, then He doesn't mean "well it's really OK with me but you chaps should not tolerate it for a while". He means "X is abominable" to Him too.

Of course, those who believe that the Bible is not inspired are free to toss around whatever new interpetation that they find compatible with their modern opinions - and can build great edifices of argument to demonstrate their own inspired correctness.

Meade
The current state of knowledge suggests that while people are not born killers or adulterers they are born to be homosexual. It is not a choice.

And Christians have come to accept something other than the clear "remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" and the various dietary restrictions as the 'accepted meaning of the bible' so I hold out hope that they might do so with homosexuality as well, where the text appears to be less direct than it is with the Saturday Sabbath.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
GrossDad
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by GrossDad »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
rubato wrote: But if this method fails then they have to find a way to reconcile a god who made people gay and them damned them for being how he made them; tough to reconcile with the idea of a loving god.
. . .

And on the other subject of interpreting scripture, the Christian canon is not restricted to the OT. Christianity itself was once regarded, by the Jewish Jerusalem adherents and by their opponents both, as being a kind of Jewish variant. Paul, himself a Jew and a rabbi and probably more aware of the Hebrew language of the Pentateuch than anyone alive today, was not exactly a "Christian" in the meaning that is being used today. So I believe that when God says X is abominable, whether in the OT or the NT, then He doesn't mean "well it's really OK with me but you chaps should not tolerate it for a while". He means "X is abominable" to Him too.

Of course, those who believe that the Bible is not inspired are free to toss around whatever new interpetation that they find compatible with their modern opinions - and can build great edifices of argument to demonstrate their own inspired correctness.

Meade
The analysis in The Bible Now is far more nuanced, and more attentive to the original language, than you appear to be even willing to consider, given the prisms through which you view the world. Your mischaracterization of that analysis appears to be willfully obtuse.
Be excellent to each other--and, party on, dudes!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Gob wrote: So your fall back position is that being gay is a choice? Really? Come off it Meade. :beat
It may be a choice for some; it may be for all; it may be for none. But the choice to perform homosexual acts is a choice for all who make it, just as is the choice to perform heterosexual acts which seems to be what the CofE implies in their recent decision.

Unless of course one equates homosexuality with kleptomania - which I understand to apply to people who have no choice but to steal? Or perhaps one should think of homisexuality as a sociopathic defect such as one finds in some killers? I do not equate homosexual behaviour with those things. I believe that as with all sin, it is a choice we make.

Meade

edited to add:
I'd like to apologise for the tone of some of the things I write. None of it is ever intended to be mean but re-reading, some parts sound that way.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Gob wrote: So your fall back position is that being gay is a choice? Really? Come off it Meade. :beat
It may be a choice for some; it may be for all; it may be for none. But the choice to perform homosexual acts is a choice for all who make it, just as is the choice to perform heterosexual acts which seems to be what the CofE implies in their recent decision.

Unless of course one equates homosexuality with kleptomania - which I understand to apply to people who have no choice but to steal? Or perhaps one should think of homisexuality as a sociopathic defect such as one finds in some killers? I do not equate homosexual behaviour with those things. I believe that as with all sin, it is a choice we make.

Meade

edited to add:
I'd like to apologise for the tone of some of the things I write. None of it is ever intended to be mean but re-reading, some parts sound that way.
Homosexuals are attracted to their own genders for companionship and romantic relationships not only sex. Homosexuals are homosexuals even when not engaging in sex. Now that marriage is becoming legal in ever-more states you can see many examples of male and female couples who have lived together for 30+ years coming forward to be married at last.

It is not a choice that both your heart and your genitals will be attracted to someone of your own gender.

The boulder of fact on which the church is being split is that if you believe in creation then god made people 'that way'. And it is an inherent contradiction to condemn people for being as god made them.

I am hoping that a better educated understanding of the original texts such as that which GrossDad suggests will provide a path forward which allows for greater social harmony. Even as a materialist who personally rejects the superstitious aspects of Christianity I would prefer a world with greater harmony. Since Christians have learned in the last 80 years not to try to exterminate Jews I am optimistic they can find a route through this as well.



yrs,
rubato

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by dales »

Since Christians have learned in the last 80 years not to try to exterminate Jews I am optimistic they can find a route through this as well.



yrs,
rubato
The mind boggles at the unfathomable idiocy of the above statement. Must be too many Pb particualtes in the air in Sta. Cruz. :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by rubato »

dales wrote:
Since Christians have learned in the last 80 years not to try to exterminate Jews I am optimistic they can find a route through this as well.



yrs,
rubato
The mind boggles at the unfathomable idiocy of the above statement. Must be too many Pb particualtes in the air in Sta. Cruz. :lol:

Before 80 years ago there are innumerable examples, dating back to before the crusades (nearly all of whom began with the slaughter of Jews in a European city). In the past 80 years* it seems to have gone out of practice although there is still significant antisemitism in some Christian communities.

I am simply praising Christians for being able to reform their behavior! Perhaps I am premature and Christians will soon revert to past practice, but I am optimistic. The historical evidence that my statement is correct is too great to even argue about.

*Is it really closer to 68 years? Well that's my generous nature for you, trying to make them look even better.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by Lord Jim »

dales wrote:
Since Christians have learned in the last 80 years not to try to exterminate Jews I am optimistic they can find a route through this as well.



yrs,
rubato
The mind boggles at the unfathomable idiocy of the above statement. Must be too many Pb particualtes in the air in Sta. Cruz. :lol:
Oh dear oh dear, rube opining on religion and history at the same time...

Not a pretty sight....

I've lost track of how many times this bigoted ignoramus has had his head handed to him over this particular bit of ignorant stupidity....

Once again, the moron shows his brazen seething loathing and contempt for anything remotely resembling a fact, especially whenever they would intrude on his hate-filled bigoted delusions....

Yeah rube, why don't you come back here again and make your idiotic fantasy argument one more time about how Nazism was a Christian ideology so I can kick your ass over it yet again...

Apparently you enjoy having my boot up your ass so much that you want to wear it as a permanent fashion accessory....
Must be too many Pb particualtes in the air in Sta. Cruz.
Rube must have grown up sucking on an exhaust pipe the way most babies suck on a pacifier, and eating paint chip oatmeal for breakfast....

At least that would give him an excuse....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by Lord Jim »

That's one of the remarkable things about rube....

He'll get handed his ass about something, and slither away from the exchange, and you'll think, "Well, at least the dolt has learned his lesson about that one..."

But nay nay....

Sometime weeks or even months later, he'll repeat the same bit of toe curling ignorance, as though he didn't realize he'd already had his face rubbed in it...

I've puzzled over why he does this....

Is he simply too stupid to retain any information for more than a few days, and therefore he simply doesn't remember being shown up for being an ignorant fool? Is it just his well known contempt for facts? Is it some sort of masochism?
ImageImageImage

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Queen James Bible

Post by dales »

I've puzzled over why he does this....
He's hoping that if he repeats the same crap, some of it might stick? :mrgreen:

eta: I look upon many of his posts as light-hearted entertainment.

Apart from his cat-gassing and bee-raising, the rube is harmless and infantile. :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

Post Reply