New study finds Bible mistranslation concerning homosexuality

[rational experiences]

Theism.

A theist. At heist criminal.

Bible about satanism by Satanists theist..l ist. Theisms stated attacked spiritual natural genetic human life.

Reality.

Satanic machine pyramid earth collider burnt us all to death by gas burning UFO activated fallout.

Burning gases killed life living in holy water oxygenated heavens. As cold cooling UFO kept removing ground water mass. In cooling metal. Seeing machine strings began taking cold mineral particle into melt.

Humans witnessed event.

Man self. A baby into adult man. Female adult life partner mother and sister. With him.

Both died historic.

Mind memory of man.. my whole human life man baby plus my mother body who owned life of man human was completely destroyed.

Falsified satanic science memory. Two same humans died in same incident.

How he theories is satanic is proven false as he identified self as an immaculate human baby inside female mother body. As advice from satanic human life destruction memories.

Records.

Who he said was his sister today.

Yet only natural sex owns a baby in human life.

His confession of man adult in science proved he falsified information by false self inference. As science was satanism.

The bible as lawful was historic scientific advice was shut by oath on a closed book the bible oath to never lie again.

Book was reopened by Satanists in the past and researched again.

Falsifying self imaged man's adult presence as an adult was never about inside a human females womb. A baby was.

He was theorising as an adult about everything by adult body which he ignores is relevant proving him wrong 100 per cent.

 

[Deeje]

Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds

I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.

How do you change God's mind on this issue? We can justify it all we want to, but nothing changes what is specifically stated....

Leviticus 18:22 says...
"You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination. כב וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא" (Tanakh)

Leviticus 20:13...
"And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves. יגוְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם:(Tanakh)

Male homosexuality is specifically mentioned because a man's "seed" is given to a woman in order for her conceive a child inside her own body. It is a holy act, limited to marriage between a man and a woman as an expression of love and intimacy....becoming "one flesh". There is no way that homosexual sex can realize its intended purpose....reproduction. Nor was there any room in God's law for SSM.

Matthew 19:4-6....
"Jesus answered, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the creator made them male and female? 5 And God said, ‘Because of this a man should leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, humans must not pull apart what God has put together.” (CEB)

The transmission of life is sacred to the Creator and it is an act of contempt to deposit the seed of life in places designed for sewage or elsewhere. God says in his word that homosexual acts are contemptible.....he has never rescinded his law on this issue. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman...the beginning of a new family.

It is sexual immorality itself that is against God's laws.....homosexual or otherwise.

Ephesians 5:3-5.....
"Sexual immorality, and any kind of impurity or greed, shouldn’t even be mentioned among you, which is right for holy persons. 4 Obscene language, silly talk, or vulgar jokes aren’t acceptable for believers. Instead, there should be thanksgiving. 5 Because you know for sure that persons who are sexually immoral, impure, or greedy—which happens when things become gods—those persons won’t inherit the kingdom of Christ and God." (CEB)

Romans 1:26-27...
"That’s why God abandoned them to degrading lust. Their females traded natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations. 27 Also, in the same way, the males traded natural sexual relations with females, and burned with lust for each other. Males performed shameful actions with males, and they were paid back with the penalty they deserved for their mistake in their own bodies."

Again, very specific language that leaves us in no doubt about God's view of this issue...regardless of gender.

However, God does not condemn the individual for his/her sexual orientation....all he requires is that no sexual immorality takes place....no matter the gender.....not even in the mind.

Of course, in order to obey God's commands, one needs to love God more than they love themselves or anyone else for that matter.....its a choice.....a sacrifice even. But there is no way to "have your cake and eat it too"......

I do not believe, based on the scriptures, that justification will make one scrap of difference to God.

 

[firedragon]

How do you change God's mind on this issue? We can justify it all we want to, but nothing changes what is specifically stated....

Leviticus 18:22 says...
"You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination. כב וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא" (Tanakh)

Leviticus 20:13...
"And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves. יגוְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם:(Tanakh)

Male homosexuality is specifically mentioned because a man's "seed" is given to a woman in order for her conceive a child inside her own body. It is a holy act, limited to marriage between a man and a woman as an expression of love and intimacy....becoming "one flesh". There is no way that homosexual sex can realize its intended purpose....reproduction. Nor was there any room in God's law for SSM.

Matthew 19:4-6....
"Jesus answered, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the creator made them male and female? 5 And God said, ‘Because of this a man should leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, humans must not pull apart what God has put together.” (CEB)

The transmission of life is sacred to the Creator and it is an act of contempt to deposit the seed of life in places designed for sewage or elsewhere. God says in his word that homosexual acts are contemptible.....he has never rescinded his law on this issue. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman...the beginning of a new family.

It is sexual immorality itself that is against God's laws.....homosexual or otherwise.

Ephesians 5:3-5.....
"Sexual immorality, and any kind of impurity or greed, shouldn’t even be mentioned among you, which is right for holy persons. 4 Obscene language, silly talk, or vulgar jokes aren’t acceptable for believers. Instead, there should be thanksgiving. 5 Because you know for sure that persons who are sexually immoral, impure, or greedy—which happens when things become gods—those persons won’t inherit the kingdom of Christ and God." (CEB)

Romans 1:26-27...
"That’s why God abandoned them to degrading lust. Their females traded natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations. 27 Also, in the same way, the males traded natural sexual relations with females, and burned with lust for each other. Males performed shameful actions with males, and they were paid back with the penalty they deserved for their mistake in their own bodies."

Again, very specific language that leaves us in no doubt about God's view of this issue...regardless of gender.

However, God does not condemn the individual for his/her sexual orientation....all he requires is that no sexual immorality takes place....no matter the gender.....not even in the mind.

Of course, in order to obey God's commands, one needs to love God more than they love themselves or anyone else for that matter.....its a choice.....a sacrifice even. But there is no way to "have your cake and eat it too"......

I do not believe, based on the scriptures, that justification will make one scrap of difference to God.

I think you should read that report he is referring to and address the points in that. What you say is true in my opinion, but that's not addressing the points raised in that report.

 

[firedragon]

That report is unfortunately too brief to understand the argument the report is making. What verses? What misinterpretations? Who says? Who says otherwise? Is Paul included?

I think most of that is addressed in that report.

 

[Harel13]

There's a lot to unpack here @Debater Slayer. I'll try to do my best.

The claims in the study seem to be an overreach at first glance, but I'm not familiar enough with Biblical language to comment much on that. What I find more pertinent and more significant is that many Jews and Christians don't subscribe to this idea of a mistranslation but still support LGBT rights and have no issue being both religious and accepting.

I can't speak for Christians, not ever having been one, so as usual, what I say will be from my perspective as an Orthodox Jew.
In terms of Jews, there are different sorts of Jews. When I say "religious Jews", I usually refer to Orthodox Jews. The reason for this is because I do not view other denominations of Judaism as legitimate in religious terms, per traditional Jewish law. The fact is that almost all modern Jewish denominations were formed by branching out of traditional Judaism, which is still preserved by Orthodox Jewry. The one possible exception is Karaite Judaism, but that depends on whether or not the Ananites were really the fathers of the movement or not. I say this, because the two main non-Orthodox denominations today, Reform and Conservative, did not arise because for hundreds or thousands of years they interpreted the Torah and its laws differently. Rather, they were looking for leniencies that would allow them to integrate better into the general society while still remaining Jewish to some extent. From this sense, I do not think they see the Torah - both the Written and more so the Oral - as being the word of God. At least, not the word of God that has relevance for the ages. Some may say that it was a set of laws given for a certain group living in a certain era, but it is irrelevant now that the times have changed.

For this reason, I am not surprised that Conservatives and Reforms have been opening their doors more and more to LGBTs. Now, you may consider this evidence of religious Jews being okay with balancing religion and LGBT "rights". Orthodoxy, however, does not agree with this view. The word of God is relevant for the ages. Therefore, I do not view this as evidence that there are "many Jews...[that] still support LGBT rights and have no issue being both religious and accepting".

And so, we're left with Orthodox Jews. At the moment, there are what I would call - and I believe most OJs would still agree on this - fringe movements on the edges of Orthodoxy that are similarly opening their doors to LGBT "rights". In my opinion, they are simply going the way of the Reform and Conservative movements. Yes, they lose their Orthodox cards. Why? The answer is simple: They crossed the line.

but still support LGBT rights and have no issue being both religious and accepting.

It's important to point out that there's a difference between accepting that some people are homosexual or bisexual and doing the best you can to make them feel welcome and to give them the tools they need to try and live their lives as God-fearing Jews, and telling: "Oh hey guys, just do whatever the heck you want, 's'all cool, brooooo."

I fervently agree that we have a lot of work to do in terms of the first option, but in terms of the second - that's off the table. As I said, that's not really an option according to our laws. In fact, to even consider it as an option would just mean to lie to or delude ourselves (the latter, in my opinion, is what this particular Christian institute is doing).

One of my primary questions about the supposed (and, in my opinion, false) dichotomy of literalism and acceptance is this: if the only two choices are either to stick to the prevalent translation and deny a group their rights and safety or to embrace a newer translation, which would be the more ethical and reasonable option?

And where do these so-called "rights" come from, exactly?

such as our current scientific understanding that homosexuality is neither unhealthy nor harmful

I am going to assume you were referring to the nature of a person being homosexual. You are correct, that is not, on a technical, physical level, harmful to a person. However, it is my belief that the homosexual lifestyle as it is today and the LGBT culture in general is very harmful to a person's wellbeing.

In my view, humanity and modern knowledge (such as our current scientific understanding that homosexuality is neither unhealthy nor harmful) always come before tradition, but again, the dichotomy is false--since millions of believers accept traditional translations of scriptures without denying others their rights or dehumanizing them.

Once again, you are both conflating two different notions, along with using this term "rights". Are these eternal rights or are they rooted in the makeup of a certain culture (like say, Western civilization)?

 

[Harel13]

Just for whomever wants to read it the following page links to a pdf formatted copy of the full, 75 page report:

----> Ground-breaking new study annuls Christian homophobia as theologians appeal directly to Pope Francis - Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research

Hey, that incredibly dumb scene from The West Wing is mentioned (itself a rip-off of this, which in my opinion makes the scene lazy writing). Man, I groan every time I watch it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds

I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.

They could have done an 8,000-, not an 80-page study on Leviticus, and still miss obvious statement as in Romans 1. The Bible mentions homosexual practice 18 times, not just in Leviticus, with none of the passages lauding the practice.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hey, that incredibly dumb scene from The West Wing is mentioned (itself a rip-off of this, which in my opinion makes the scene lazy writing). Man, I groan every time I watch it.

That's hilarious. I haven't seen West Wing or Grey's Anatomy or any other hospital show except for House.

I'm skimming and looking through the paper.

 

[pearl]

I'm not sure why the Catholic Church would care. It doesn't affect the arguments in Humanae Vitae that the Church uses against all sex without procreation or procreation without sex (and by extension, same-sex sexual activity, masturbation, birth control, artificial insemination, etc., etc.).

Exactly. The Church would have to seriously amend its Natural Law beliefs. There has been since controversy as to whether or not Humanae Vitae was infallible. Regardless, we tend to allow too much authority to the pope without realizing the strength of the Roman Curia. This would surely place the Church within the possibility of yet another schism within the Curia as would the ordination of women to the priesthood. I think Francis gives a faith response to the question of same sex marriage, as opposed to a religious response.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The paper refers heavily to the following work to support the claim that sexual attraction is determined at birth. Its an interesting argument, but it may not truly address the concerns of the pontiff. I think it pummels the wrong target. It is relevant and forces the church to answer questions but misses the summit.

Bailey, J. Michael, Paul L. Vasey, Lisa M. Diamond, S. Marc Breedlove, Eric Vilain, and
Marc Epprecht. "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science." Psychological Sci-
ence in the Public Interest 17, no. 2 (2016): 45�101​

Ok...here's one way I think that the paper could be improved:



The Roman Catholic view does not reflect the Orthodox Jewish view, so Catholics can have a separate interpretation by means of the fact that they have broken away from the Orthodox Jews doing many things differently already. What both have in common is the teaching of pacifism which is more or less supported over many centuries. Is this the real reason for their emphasis upon reproduction? It is I think, but neither groups states it precisely. Its simply loud and everywhere in symbols and rules and is easily interpolated. It isn't stated in scholarly terms.

I cite the passage about the story of Israel in Egypt in which the Pharoah is alarmed at their swarming numbers in Goshen. Its an example of this principle of pacifism through reproduction. What will be the impact if the Roman Catholic institution blesses same sex marriages? How will it affect the world? Will it undermine pacifism? The paper ignores or seems ignorant of the big Abrahamic plan to fill the land with pacifists. This seems like the true basis for all. I infer that pacifism-through-reproduction is at the center, not merely reproduction. Either the paper misses this or it is unstated by Jewish and Catholic sources cited and so is dismissed. That it is not verbally stated does not mean it is unimportant. It is the hinge. Are they aware of this? They need to rewrite their paper addressing this directly.

This story of Israel's trouble in Egypt is recounted yearly by all Jews and Roman Catholics and other Catholics. The Jews in particular hold this as one of the most if not the most important yearly practices. Every year they remind themselves. Pharoah believes in war machines, but Abraham's children do not. Despite the great numbers of Jews the Pharoah is able to enslave them, and there is no mention of them resisting. Why? One implication is that since they won't fight they are enslaved, and eventually their slavery is broken not by fighting but by the L-RD. This is classic pacifism. This takes 400 years of complaining, 400 years of being second class citizens, 400 years of maximal reproduction, too. Can a church that blesses homosexual unions accomplish the same thing? That is the question which must needs be addressed with more than "Yeah its fine."

 

[Orbit]

Just out of curiosity, do you understand the difference between mistranslation (your sloppy title) and misinterpretation?

There's also something more than a little distasteful about gloating that that, while male homosexuality is not kosher, lesbians get a pass. Thanks for making a bold stand for LGBT rights!

I was simply accurately describing the claims made by the paper.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was simply accurately describing the claims made by the paper.

Some of us got that.

 

[Orbit]

How do you change God's mind on this issue? We can justify it all we want to, but nothing changes what is specifically stated....

Leviticus 18:22 says...
"You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination. כב וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא" (Tanakh)

Leviticus 20:13...
"And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves. יגוְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם:(Tanakh)

Male homosexuality is specifically mentioned because a man's "seed" is given to a woman in order for her conceive a child inside her own body. It is a holy act, limited to marriage between a man and a woman as an expression of love and intimacy....becoming "one flesh". There is no way that homosexual sex can realize its intended purpose....reproduction. Nor was there any room in God's law for SSM.

Matthew 19:4-6....
"Jesus answered, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the creator made them male and female? 5 And God said, ‘Because of this a man should leave his father and mother and be joined together with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, humans must not pull apart what God has put together.” (CEB)

The transmission of life is sacred to the Creator and it is an act of contempt to deposit the seed of life in places designed for sewage or elsewhere. God says in his word that homosexual acts are contemptible.....he has never rescinded his law on this issue. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman...the beginning of a new family.

It is sexual immorality itself that is against God's laws.....homosexual or otherwise.

Ephesians 5:3-5.....
"Sexual immorality, and any kind of impurity or greed, shouldn’t even be mentioned among you, which is right for holy persons. 4 Obscene language, silly talk, or vulgar jokes aren’t acceptable for believers. Instead, there should be thanksgiving. 5 Because you know for sure that persons who are sexually immoral, impure, or greedy—which happens when things become gods—those persons won’t inherit the kingdom of Christ and God." (CEB)

Romans 1:26-27...
"That’s why God abandoned them to degrading lust. Their females traded natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations. 27 Also, in the same way, the males traded natural sexual relations with females, and burned with lust for each other. Males performed shameful actions with males, and they were paid back with the penalty they deserved for their mistake in their own bodies."

Again, very specific language that leaves us in no doubt about God's view of this issue...regardless of gender.

However, God does not condemn the individual for his/her sexual orientation....all he requires is that no sexual immorality takes place....no matter the gender.....not even in the mind.

Of course, in order to obey God's commands, one needs to love God more than they love themselves or anyone else for that matter.....its a choice.....a sacrifice even. But there is no way to "have your cake and eat it too"......

I do not believe, based on the scriptures, that justification will make one scrap of difference to God.

You evidently didn't follow the link to the report; they cover all of that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was simply accurately describing the claims made by the paper.

Accurately and uncritically -- got it.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not an expert on biology, so I skimmed that part. I got the point that they were trying to narrow down the Church's view to the biblical part, and so I'm now making my way through that (until I get to the NT, which is an argument I understand less and also care less about).

They quickly got to claiming that the verses in Genesis are a polemic by the Priestly source of the Bible. In other words, they hold by the Documentary Hypothesis. While not Catholic, I doubt that suggesting that Genesis is merely a P polemic (and not the word of God) would really convince the Church, so I don't really get their game here. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

 

[Rival]

I'm not an expert on biology, so I skimmed that part. I got the point that they were trying to narrow down the Church's view to the biblical part, and so I'm now making my way through that (until I get to the NT, which is an argument I understand less and also care less about).

They quickly got to claiming that the verses in Genesis are a polemic by the Priestly source of the Bible. In other words, they hold by the Documentary Hypothesis. While not Catholic, I doubt that suggesting that Genesis is merely a P polemic (and not the word of God) would really convince the Church, so I don't really get their game here. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

I bothered Vouthon about it on Discord so hopefully he'll answer when he's back

 

[Harel13]

I bothered Vouthon about it on Discord so hopefully he'll answer when he's back

Thanks.

 

[Harel13]

Accurately and uncritically -- got it.

So I take it you read the entire thing?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So I take it you read the entire thing?

No. Just the (3) Assessment.

 

[Harel13]

No. Just the (3) Assessment.

Well, like I said a few posts above, I'm only skimming the parts that interest me, i.e., those parts that I can understand, but from what I can tell in the assessment, they do actually posit that they argued for leniency for male homosexual relationships, after having quickly cleared the way for female homosexual relationships, so either I missed something in there, or......