New study finds Bible mistranslation concerning homosexuality

[Vouthon]

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?

Hey, I've been summoned by @Rival. I'm currently exercising, so this will just be a quickie from me for now

I'd have to re-read the relevant paragraphs of the report, as I just skimmed it yesterday, but my understanding is that you are correct.

Whether or not the idea of “in-built” fertility/reproduction is a merely distinctive concern of the Priestly account of creation (henceforth “P”, assuming that this particular scholarly theory on the composition of Genesis is correct, which I leave to the scholars' determination and debate), it doesn't alter the fact that the divine command/blessing in Genesis 1:28a (“Be fruitful, increase in number, fill the earth”) is inerrant scripture as given in the text, no matter if it originated as a priestly 'polemic' or not.

If true - that this is a unique addition or preoccupation of 'P' - then that recognition would certainly help us better understand how the human agent(s), used by God as His amanuensis/ses, got around to compiling the present account in Genesis as we have it, but it would not change the significance or revealed nature of the text as given, which is the Word of God.

This is because, the "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture" is de fide in the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council: "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

I'll get back to this later, though, when I have the time to refresh myself on the actual argument in the study (and I'm not, preferably, pumping iron ️ )

 

[Harel13]

Hey, I've been summoned by @Rival. I'm currently exercising, so this will just be a quickie from me for now

I'd have to re-read the relevant paragraphs of the report, as I just skimmed it yesterday, but my understanding is that you are correct.

Whether or not the idea of “in-built” fertility/reproduction is a merely distinctive concern of the Priestly account of creation (henceforth “P”, assuming that this particular scholarly theory on the composition of Genesis is correct, which I leave to the scholars' determination and debate), it doesn't alter the fact that the divine command/blessing in Genesis 1:28a (“Be fruitful, increase in number, fill the earth”) is inerrant scripture as given in the text, no matter if it originated as a priestly 'polemic' or not.

If true - that this is a unique addition or preoccupation of 'P' - then that recognition would certainly help us better understand how the human agent(s), used by God as His amanuensis/ses, got around to compiling the present account in Genesis as we have it, but it would not change the significance or revealed nature of the text as given, which is the Word of God.

This is because, the "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture" is de fide in the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council: "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

I'll get back to this later, though, when I have the time to refresh myself on the actual argument in the study (and I'm not, preferably, pumping iron ️ )

Am I right in saying that turning to the Documentary Hypothesis as evidence for their claim is an odd idea, or is the Church nowadays welcoming of the DH, so there's nothing wrong there?

 

[Vouthon]

Am I right in saying that turning to the Documentary Hypothesis as evidence for their claim is an odd idea, or is the Church nowadays welcoming of the DH, so there's nothing wrong there?

I would think it's an odd angle to take, more for the fact that even if accepted (there's nothing in Catholic doctrine, to my knowledge, which precludes the DH from being true, given that Mosaic authorship of Genesis is merely the traditional interpretation of the Patristics and most Catholics before the nineteenth century, but its not mandated), the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy in my Church would largely render the argument moot, because no matter how the text came to be (from a Y and P source, or from Moses, the Church does not mandate what to believe in that respect), the text as given is the inerrant Word of God.

As such, if their argument genuinely hinges on Genesis 1:28 being a minority judgment or polemic of "P", then it's kind of - "and? So what? It's divinely revealed as given anyway, no matter if you're right about how it's composition came about".

So, I wouldn't really say that this is liable to persuade anyone. A good intra-textual exegesis with reference to the theological tradition of interpretation of the verse, would be far more persuasive.

 

[Deeje]

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.

I’d like this response to address @Orbit’s post as well.....

I am not remotely interested in any report by any person or group that seeks to undermine God’s law on sexual immorality. These laws are set in concrete IMO.

Mistranslation? What absolute nonsense! There can be no justification for altering God’s laws on the use of one’s reproductive organs. It’s noble and primary purpose is for reproduction......the fact that it is a physically pleasurable way to create life, is a gift confined to scriptural marriage. The pleasure is not the main biological objective however. Like all creatures on this earth, we have a strong drive to procreate...but unlike those in the animal kingdom, we alone have laws governing our sexual behavior....because we are not animals. A concept of morality is exclusively human.

It is no coincidence IMO, that the very first reaction to sin in humankind was shame, along with a natural response to cover their reproductive parts. Their first sinful thoughts involved their sexuality....and God’s laws in the Bible reflected God’s thinking on the matter. He covered their bodies in a more modest way than they did. (Genesis 3:21)

Now, I understand that “unbelievers” will naturally seek to ignore what they believe are archaic attitudes towards homosexuality or indeed any expression of sexuality, feeling free to engage in sexual activity with anyone, like animals do. This has led to transmissible STD’s, suggesting to Bible believers that we are designed to be monogamous and heterosexual. i.e. no multiple sexual partners....and no gay sex.

“Believers” however, especially in this day and age, have been seeking ways to be “gay believers”......i.e. being in gay relationships and still having God’s approval. Until relatively recent times, this was impossible because of the perception that gay sex was forbidden by the Scriptures, leading to a person “burning in hell for eternity”.....so they seek to alter perception of what the Bible says, suggesting that mistranslation is the problem, not the gay sex itself. I don’t buy that.

Taking the overview of the Bible’s teachings, there is no way to alter God’s laws on the use of our bodies that God designed the sexes to “go together” to produce more humans. It is against nature and an abomination against the Creator to use a sewage outlet to implant the sacred seed of life. That is what the Bible teaches me....what it teaches others is up to them. If they want justification, they will find it.....but if they cannot justify it to the Creator, what have they accomplished?

I have no belief in a burning “hell”, so according to my beliefs there is only life or death. The worst thing God will do is take away our right to exist if we violate his laws....eternal life in the Bible is contrasted with eternal death. So how we choose to live in this world will determine whether we continue living in a better world to come.....or not.

That is how I see it.

 

[firedragon]

I am not remotely interested in any report

OK. Have a nice day.

 

[Deeje]

OK. Have a nice day.

I read it......I am not in any way swayed by it.....you have a nice day too....

 

[firedragon]

I read it......I am not in any way swayed by it.....you have a nice day too....

Sway? I think the paper is absurd and full of assumptions based on just made up theories. So there is no way of getting swayed or even to begin swaying.

Its just you you said you are not interested, and there is no discussion necessary after that. Cheers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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......

Perhaps it was I who missed something. One can argue ad nauseam about interpretation, but what, precisely, was mistranslated.

 

[Deeje]

Sway? I think the paper is absurd and full of assumptions based on just made up theories. So there is no way of getting swayed or even to begin swaying.

How you responded to the report is up to you.

Its just you you said you are not interested, and there is no discussion necessary after that. Cheers.

You have a tendency to read into people's posts things that they did not intend.....everything seems to be so black and white with you.....the whole of my post was my response, not one part of one sentence.

I am not into one liners as you well know, so I give reasons for why I believe as I do.....my faith is based on knowledge not on the opinions of those who want to twist the truth to suit their own agenda.

 

[firedragon]

How you responded to the report is up to you.


You have a tendency to read into people's posts things that they did not intend.....everything seems to be so black and white with you.....the whole of my post was my response, not one part of one sentence.

I am not into one liners as you well know, so I give reasons for why I believe as I do.....my faith is based on knowledge not on the opinions of those who want to twist the truth to suit their own agenda.

Sorry Deeje if I didnt respond to your whole post. Generally I do not respond to a whole post once they had started with "I dont care", or "I am not interested" or anything of the sort. Its not that I didnt read your post, but I just dont see me responding.

Nevertheless I will just leave this comment. This report I read fully, and read the references just to be sure of what they are talking about. Its written well, but there are more than most assessments made based on 'he says so". For example, it says that at the time of Pauls the word Arsenekoitus referred to forceful sex with men or basically "rape", which is not based on anything because its just some made up apologetic. How do you know Paul meant rape? No information on that. So its actually just made up.

So this paper is a collection of apologetic pieces with no validity whatsoever. They are not retranslating anything, they are simply "making up things".

Peace.

 

[rational experiences]

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.

Genesis life healing DNA continuance advice. For humans.

Medical science review.

Men women human sex balanced. Life continues by sex pregnancy birth.

Man will die out in sex act with man as no pregnancy occurs. Hence total act of mens sex reviewed.

Men exist as humans.
Men knowingly were having sex with men.

Previously men paired with women notice Fe male is stated owner of male or men by human man defined word description.

Not any God. By men.

I live on in life by baby in wo men.

Said science status life had been changed by conditions observed.

Men sex is a chosen men sexual act so it has to be observed.

Men in science said as I had abominated life satanic by irradiation.

Heaven images feedback recording life image voice now wandered as atmosphere heavens changed for cooling of life attacked. Men affected by mother's life record owned penis by body yet thought self woman.

Self human.possession.

Reasoned by humans as humans as humans in God science satanism irradiation had caused the effect.

Stated observed the See.

 

[Deeje]

So this paper is a collection of apologetic pieces with no validity whatsoever. They are not retranslating anything, they are simply "making up things".

Yes...its called justification......the Bible doesn't really say what it clearly says because they want to justify homosexual sex.
If God say you can't eat cake, then calling it bread doesn't make any difference.....

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yeah post hoc rationalisation studies don't impress me much.

I appreciate that the intent is to find a way for peoples of faith who are gay to be able to get along, so I think the authors of the study are well intentioned and probably believe what they say.

But to me if the words weren't interpreted that way before we discovered gay rights then it has to at least be admitted that the alternative interpretation is not the clear interpretation and that sufficient ambiguity exists in the text to have allowed centuries of gay persecution.

And at that point I think you can argue that humans could have written it better with hindsight, which means that an omniscient God should have been able to write it better with foresight. Which leads to the logical conclusion that these words are not the word of God.

Hi Daniel. How are you? Hope you and your family are ok. Lockdown? We just began a 1 week lockdown here. Give our best regards to your mum and dad and family from Aunty snd me.

With scripture laws often the case is mutatis mutandis. So for instance there are other laws which don’t specify a sex but apply to everyone. I believe this is in the same category.

As to persecution, the Bible teaches to love and forgive all even ones enemies so hatred and oppression of people for any reason is clearly forbidden by the Holy Text.

Fanatics and extremists by persecuting others, ignore and disobey their own scriptures and harm others. That is the fault of fanaticism not the Holy Book because the Book teaches to love all. Extremism is a result of unbalanced minds. Condemning the act of homosexuality is one thing but that does not abrogate the eternal law of love towards all.

 

[danieldemol]

Hi Daniel. How are you? Hope you and your family are ok. Lockdown? We just began a 1 week lockdown here. Give our best regards to your mum and dad and family from Aunty snd me.

Going well and under lockdown here also. ETA Give kind regards to Aunty from my family and me also.

As to persecution, the Bible teaches to love and forgive all even ones enemies so hatred and oppression of people for any reason is clearly forbidden by the Holy Text.

You are cherrypicking one or two lines from what is really a collection of contradictory books written by a number of authors and then trying to portray those cherries as being representative of the whole collection, but if you read the collection from beginning to end you will find those cherries not to be representative of the entire sample at all.

Condemning the act of homosexuality is one thing but that does not abrogate the eternal law of love towards all.

Actually it does, if you when you were a young man were forbidden from acts of intimacy with Aunty even within the confines of marriage i bet you would find it to be oppressive and not at all loving.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Do they really address the documentary hypothesis? And did they really make priestly source into genesis or vice versa?

 

[We Never Know]

Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds

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

I wonder how much more of the bible has been mistranslated.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds

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

The Bible says that certain things have specific criteria, so anything different than that is unclean. Fish should have scales, so sea life without scales are unclean, etc. Also, things that other religions partook in are unclean, i.e., worshiping other gods, homosexual activities, etc. It's a pretty narrow view, but that's how they are set apart by Yahweh.

 

[rational experiences]

My brother's sacrificed life heard records scientist.

Proven by Gaol lie Galileo.

Self encoded caused inherited. Science is man's fault. The machine began and was built from the product dust.

Everyone is a human. All children of their holy father. Brother did not listen to father..
Don't change God.

Witnessed.

Human explanation scientific. Science has greed elite reasons.

Science statement bible was derided would not listen. Used coercion such as it is karmic. You deserved it. Occult scientist retaliation. To coerce the public. God did it to them it was deserved.

How Jesus as a teaching was derided.

You have to live as a human to be changed.

Human the whole time.

We know ourselves human in self reflection. Feedback recorded life is our image. As we got irradiated DNA changed.

Images records began to wander. Cooling after heated.

As a psychic in Australia one day a young Irish lad just deceased told me. I then understood why they discussed wandering records and how a human no longer could self reflect upon their owned holy being.

 

[firedragon]

If true - that this is a unique addition or preoccupation of 'P' - then that recognition would certainly help us better understand how the human agent(s), used by God as His amanuensis/ses, got around to compiling the present account in Genesis as we have it, but it would not change the significance or revealed nature of the text as given, which is the Word of God.

You know Im curious. Several people or at least two have brought up the P source associating it to Genesis. I am curious to know why. Can you give a synopsis?

 

[firedragon]

I wonder how much more of the bible has been mistranslated.

Actually the paper referenced in the OP is not really talking about a mistranslation.