Verse in leviticus about homosexuality
Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?
Reprinted with permission from The Forge Online
The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to intend “homosexual” until
We got to position down with Ed Oxford at his home in Long Beach, California and talk about this doubt.
You own been part of a research team that is seeking to understand how the decision was made to put the pos homosexual in the bible. Is that true?
Ed: Yes. It first showed up in the RSV translation. So before figuring out why they decided to use that word in the RSV translation (which is outlined in my upcoming novel with Kathy Baldock, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay) I wanted to notice how other cultures and translations treated the identical verses when they were translated during the Reformation years ago. So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish… you name it. Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve composed over time. An
Leviticus
“You shall not lounge with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”[1] It is not a surprise that this verse seems to say that homosexual male sex is forbidden in the eyes of God. The dominant view of western Christianity forbids same-sex relations. This verse is one of the clobber passages that people cite from the Bible to condemn homosexuality. This essay first looks at the various ways the verse is translated into the English Bible and then explores some of the strategies used to create an affirming meaning of what this channel means for the LGBTQ community. More specifically, it presents the interpretation of K. Renato Lings in which Lev. refers to male-on-male incest.
While Lev. is used to condemn homosexuality, we must realize that the term “homosexuality” was only recently coined in the English language. So did this term be in ancient Israel? Charles D. Myers, Jr. confirms that none of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible mention homosexuality.[2] He also contends that in ancient Israel same-sex relations were viewed as an ancient Near East issue. The anc
Leviticus
- Recent Translations
- All Translations
22 “ ‘Do not contain sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus Meaning and Commentary
Thou shall not stretch with mankind as with womankind
By carnal knowledge of them, and carnal copulation with them, and mixing bodies in like manner: this is the sin commonly called sodomy, from the inhabitants of Sodom, greatly addicted to it, for which their city was destroyed by fire: those that are guilty of this sin, are, by the apostle, called "abusers of themselves with mankind", ( 1 Corinthians ) ; it [is] abomination;
it is so to God, as the above instance of his vengeance shows, and ought to be abominable to men, as being not only contrary to the law of God, but even contrary to character itself, and what is never to be observed among brute creatures.
Taken from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
Unlock Deeper Insights: Obtain Over 20 Commentaries with Plus! Subscribe Now
Leviticus In-Context
20 “ ‘Do not possess sexual relations with your nei
Lost in Translation: Alternative Meaning in Leviticus
Most traditional English translations interpret Leviticus as a holy condemnation of erotic, same-sex relationships. However, careful philological, literary study of the original Hebrew shows another interpretation: a divine condemnation of same-sex rape. The first Hebrew is more ambiguous than the traditional English translation. Instead of practicing the principle of lectio difficilior probabilitor, “the more difficult reading and more likely reading,” modern translators dispel ambiguity by making the translation as simple as possible.[1] However, the translators’ attempts to clarify the Hebrew text presents a reading that is not only harmful, but incongruent to the context of Leviticus. This essay focuses on three main points in K. Renato Ling’s literary examination of Lev. that provides a holistic interpretation. First, the addition of propositions within Lev. by English translators alters the verse’s meaning. Second, the reoccurrence of the rare Hebrew word miškevēwithin Gen. presents a philological nuance that i