Homosexuality in the Bible

[ckirkland]

No if it was something biblical it must be a sin

 

[Pah]

that it did not only apply to temple sex but sex in general. Was sodom or Gahamora in a temple no, dont buy into that its what the advasary wants you to think

Many biblical scholars say the Sodom was not a homosexual issue but one of graciousness to visitors. Many of the wording used in the original Bible had no inference to homosexuality as we understand it. You, my friend, have to base your argument of the Greek and on the Hebrew.

 

[ckirkland]

you are an educated person so let me ask you what about The word that speaks of homosexuality as an abolmination. Or When it plainly says that a man shuldnt lie with a man as he lies with a woman. Its A SIN .. BUT JESUS STILL DIED FOR EVERYONE IM NOT SPREADING A MESSAGE OF HATE BUT OF LOVE dont you see if any man accept Christ and follow him he can be saves

 

[Pah]

todays understanding of homosexuality has nothing to do with it on a biblical basis its a sin plain and simple

No if it was something biblical it must be a sin

First of all, "sin" is only a concept for believers in the Bible as God's word. I, personally, don't sin.

Secondly, you have to showthat the "sin" of the Bible is the "sin" of today.

 

[Pah]

The word is very clear on the issue of homosexuality it is an abolmination in the eyes of God. You cant paint that any other way than what it is. How can a homosexual be a christian is to be a christian is to be Christ like and Christ was holy and perfect. How can an abolmination be made whole but that he/or/she/ accept Christ and in turn accept the word of God and turn from their sin.

You would have to take that up with the Holy Ghost. He is the one that that gives other Christians the spiritual right to practise homosexuality.

 

[ckirkland]

dont know what uve been taught but u need to read the word or better yet cry out to jesus and he will guide you through the holy spirit

 

[sojourner]

you are an educated person so let me ask you what about The word that speaks of homosexuality as an abolmination. Or When it plainly says that a man shuldnt lie with a man as he lies with a woman. Its A SIN .. BUT JESUS STILL DIED FOR EVERYONE IM NOT SPREADING A MESSAGE OF HATE BUT OF LOVE dont you see if any man accept Christ and follow him he can be saves

Here's a quote from another post of mine that you might find helpful:

"The Biblical writers who wrote the few passages about homosexuality did not think of it as moral corruption, but as cultural taboo. In the culture of the ancient Middle-East, honor and shame were embedded through sexual roles in the social understanding of the society. Men embodied honor, and were bound to treat other equal men, and be treated by other men, with honor. Women embodied shame, and were bound to live out of that shame. Because women were shameful, they were not equal to men, who were honorable. Women were not bound to keep religious law -- their men kept it for them, because women found their honor through their men -- not through themselves.

It was, therefore, a shameful act -- out of social character -- for a man to "bend over and take it" like a woman from an equal. Not a moral error, but a social one! That's the way the writers understood it. That was their mind set when they wrote about it. If they portrayed it as sin, it was because the act was shameful in their culture. We don't embody shame and honor in the same way in our culture. We don't assign those attributes through sexual roles, in the way the ancient people of the Middle-East did. Therefore, in our culture, men and women are equal, and embody both shame and honor equally. It is not, in our culture, shameful for a man to act submissively in his sexual role."

When we read the Bible, we have to read it through the lens of the world view in which it was written -- not through our own lens. We can't understand what God is saying through the scriptures if we can't read our way through the cultural static.

 

[Dentonz]

Here's a quote from another post of mine that you might find helpful:

"The Biblical writers who wrote the few passages about homosexuality did not think of it as moral corruption, but as cultural taboo. In the culture of the ancient Middle-East, honor and shame were embedded through sexual roles in the social understanding of the society. Men embodied honor, and were bound to treat other equal men, and be treated by other men, with honor. Women embodied shame, and were bound to live out of that shame. Because women were shameful, they were not equal to men, who were honorable. Women were not bound to keep religious law -- their men kept it for them, because women found their honor through their men -- not through themselves.

It was, therefore, a shameful act -- out of social character -- for a man to "bend over and take it" like a woman from an equal. Not a moral error, but a social one! That's the way the writers understood it. That was their mind set when they wrote about it. If they portrayed it as sin, it was because the act was shameful in their culture. We don't embody shame and honor in the same way in our culture. We don't assign those attributes through sexual roles, in the way the ancient people of the Middle-East did. Therefore, in our culture, men and women are equal, and embody both shame and honor equally. It is not, in our culture, shameful for a man to act submissively in his sexual role."

When we read the Bible, we have to read it through the lens of the world view in which it was written -- not through our own lens. We can't understand what God is saying through the scriptures if we can't read our way through the cultural static.

If the Bible was just written for the people who wrote it, I could agree with you. However, it was inspred by an eternal God for all of mankind past, present, and future. It makes no difference what culture says is ok. You will not be judged by how well you fit in to your culture, you will be judged on whether you accepted the word of God or not.

 

[ckirkland]

the bible is the unfalliable, word of God and God is never changing therefore the word is still just as important today as it was then. And no it wsnt taboo it was and is wrong and a sin

 

[Pah]

dont know what uve been taught but u need to read the word or better yet cry out to jesus and he will guide you through the holy spirit

You wouldn't be denying the Holy Ghost per chance? .. as he speaks to others?

 

[Pah]

the bible is the unfalliable, word of God and God is never changing therefore the word is still just as important today as it was then. And no it wsnt taboo it was and is wrong and a sin

But you have not identified the practise that is the "sin"

 

[sojourner]

If the Bible was just written for the people who wrote it, I could agree with you. However, it was inspred by an eternal God for all of mankind past, present, and future. It makes no difference what culture says is ok. You will not be judged by how well you fit in to your culture, you will be judged on whether you accepted the word of God or not.

Of course it was inspired by God, but it was written by men, who interpreted truth through the lens of their own culture, just as we interpret truth through our cultural influences. Actually, it does make a difference what the culture says, because we operate within the culture in which we live. That culture is imbedded in our sense of right and wrong. Truth, revelation, good, evil, God ... these are all interpreted through the lens of our own culture. That's why interpreting through the cultural lens is so important when reading the Bible. If you think you read the Bible purely, without your reading and understanding being colored by the culture in which you live, you're naive. If you think the writers wrote the Bible purely and without the writing having been influenced by their culture, you're wong.

 

[Adstar]

I wish to point out the inconsistencies concerning homosexuality in the bible.

Specifically homosexual behavior either condoned or ignored by God in the Bible.

I have previously posted some of what I will be posting here elsewhere but I haven’t made my point clear enough it seems.

I wish to clarify it to the best of my abilities here, now.

I first want to point out that what I` m doing is ultimately pointless because I don’t believe the Bible should have any bearing on how a person lives their life or what society deems ethical.

I believe the Bibles undeniable support of slavery and oppression of women are examples of why we shouldn’t use it’s guidance in the case of homosexuality or any other moral dilemma.

My first example of homosexuality in the Bible is Jonathan and David as described in 1 Samuel.

Considering my interpretation of 1 Samuel 20:41 is the most contested I will start there.

Correct translation 1 Samuel 20:41:

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together – until David became great."

The part of this verse most debated is the use of the word “great”
In the original Hebrew the word “Gadal” is used as a verb and depending on the context that it is used in means “he grew” or “to become great,” (intransitive verb)
The closest meaning to English would be “to magnify”.

I will admit, standing alone and out of context this verse doesn’t seem very convincing of Biblical homosexuality.

It was the way this verse was treated by English translations of the Bible which led me to believe that these publishers themselves interpreted the original Hebrew as implying homosexuality.
These Christians themselves thought Jonathan and David were engaged in a homosexual relationship.
I came to this conclusion when I read the various different English translations.

The first and most contested translation is in the KJV .

1 Samuel 20:41 (Kings James Version)

[And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

Here in the KJV “gadal” is translated to “exceeded”.

The Hebrew word for exceeded is not gadal it is gabar.

I believe the publishers/translators of the KJV mistranslated this particular verse to imply that Jonathan and David’s embrace made David strong instead of making him “grow” or become great.

The meaning of gabar..

to prevail, have strength, be strong, be powerful, be mighty, be great
a. (Qal)
1. to be strong, mighty
2. to prevail
b. (Piel) to make strong, strengthen
c. (Hiphil)
1. to confirm, give strength
2. to confirm (a covenant)
d. (Hithpael)
1. to show oneself mighty
2. to act proudly (toward God)

In order for David to have “exceeded” the sentence the word "exceeded" is used in would have to define exactly “what” David exceeded.
In this case it does not and cannot be used in this context.

Furthermore, Gadal cannot be interpreted as “exceeded” in any context therefore “Exceeded” is an incorrect translation.

Below I’ll summarize a list of mistranslations in a number of English Bibles to show the length these Christian publishers are willing to twist their Gods word to change its meaning for their own purposes whether real or imagined.


-"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
-"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
-"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
-"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible) "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
-"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
-"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

It seems The Living Bible couldn’t restrain it’s homophobia enough to even allow a kiss between the two.
It has them shaking hands.

The KJV translation could be an honest error but these last are obviously purposely mistranslated.
If this was not done to “hide” the implication of homosexuality then I would ask those who disagree with me to submit some sort of reasoning for it before they bother to disagree.

This verse is not the only statement that supports a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan in this tale, there is much more that I will go into perhaps tomorrow.

I am not implying that there was a physical relationship between the two as there is no verse to support it as fact.

What I am implying is that this story clearly tells a tale of a relationship that is far more intimate and emotional than that of two heterosexual friends.

I am not a Hebrew scholar and have relied heavily on the work of others for this little post so if anyone sees anything that is incorrect please explain it to me and I wil correct or retract it.

Biblical Reference
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

Definition of Semitic languages
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Semitic_languages
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB14.htm#S1431
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/

Garbage.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Pah]

Garbage.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I can't imagine a pious individual calling a passage in the Bible garbage. A simular story, not as graphic, is in Ruth.

 

[Adstar]

I am not calling scriptures garbage i am calling the message of the post garbage. As it is.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[standing_alone]

Garbage.

:clap Compelling argument!

 

[Pah]

I am not calling scriptures garbage i am calling the message of the post garbage. As it is.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The message of the post IS scripture.

 

[Mister Emu]

The message of the post IS scripture.

A fallacious interpretation of scripture.

NEE!

I demand a... SHRUBBERY!!!

 

[Pah]

A fallacious interpretation of scripture.

I fully understand that it might be for you. But in the wiles of religious thought, it might just be accurate.

 

[Adstar]

The message of the post IS scripture.

No the message of the post is the twisting of scripture to propagate a lie that the homosexual act is ok with God. Also it is slander against David, a false allegation that he was a homosexual.

Garbage and lies and slander. So more than just garbage.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days