Lev 18:22- here we go again. . .

[beforHim]

I didn't know if I should pos ths here or biblical languages, so I osted it at both (and this way 'll get a better chance a someone seeing and answering it). This was at myspace forums (what a wealth of knowledge there, huh?). I am really only wondering if the hebrew is right. All the other stuff the guy says I can get around, but I don't know Hebrew, hence I don't know if he is correct.

My, what a weapon the Bible can be. Just look at popular mindset when it comes to the Book of Leviticus' apparent "prohibition" on homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
King James Version:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

New International Version:
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

New American Standard Bible:
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Young's Literal Translation:
`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].


However, whilst ruminating, I came to think, well, technically it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to lie with man as with a woman, since men do not have vaginas.

Still, this is the literal explanation, which most people, for whatever reason, choose to laugh off and dismiss in favor of an expansive interpretation.

I realize that my own thoughts will not qualify as codified doctrine to many, but, has anyone ever bothered to look at what the original Hebrew text ACTUALLY says??

V'eith zakhar lo thish'kav mish'k'veiy ishah toeivah hi
"And male not shall lay in beds of woman abhorrence it"


Does that really and honestly look like a prohibition on homosexuality to you? Does it in the LEAST look like God is telling people how their minds are to operate (ie thinking "straight" vs "thinking gay")? It says male shall not lay in beds of woman. That is the abomination. The word "with" (Hebrew "im") does not even exist in the original Hebrew text, those are all late additions created by anti-gay factions who held power over Biblical translations, so each of the four translations I posted at first are invalid and untrue. Actually, the word "man" (Heb 'ish') is not in the verse either, the word is "zakhar" meaning "male," and in Biblical Hebrew, there is a difference.

Many Christians are against homosexuality due to the expansive interpretation of this verse, while at the same time do not worry about eating cheeseburgers, since the Bible "technically" and "literally" only commands us not to cook a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19). Why do they not accept the expansive interpretation of that verse, and not mix ANY meat with dairy, like Jews do, but accept the expansive interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, which actually just says a male shall not lay in beds of women?

If anything, the implied prohibition would be on heterosexuality, not homosexuality.

If anyone knows if this is right or wrong, or knows were I could be directed to to get an answer, please speak up. Thx. :)

[daniel1212]

However, whilst ruminating, I came to think, well, technically it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to lie with man as with a woman, since men do not have vaginas.

To the mySpace epologist,

Its impossible for you to ruminate, as you only have one stomach. And if you're tall enough, hit the lights. If one will not completely strike out, they must understand by the abundant use of euphemisms in the Bible and in life that they do not require a complete one-to-one correspondence,
-----------------------

"V'eith zakhar lo thish'kav mish'k'veiy ishah toeivah hi
And male not shall lay in beds of woman abhorrence it"

H854

This is your preferred rendering, but you have you have 11 words out of 8 Hebrew ones, and the "of" before women i find not, and overall your rendering is not strickly warranted.

'êth= WITH/AMONG zâkâr= MAN lo=NO shâkab=LIE/LAY mishkâb= BED 'ishshâh / nâshı̂ym WOMEN/WIFE tô‛êbah ABOMINATION hû' / hı̂y' THIS, WHICH, SAME
-----------------

the word "man" (Heb 'ish') is not in the verse either, the word is "zakhar" meaning "male," and in Biblical Hebrew, there is a difference.

Of course there is a difference, God makes differences, and 'ish' is no gender-specific but "zakhar" is, as in "male and female created he them." Just laying is beds is not a problem, and if it were, then other women could be excluded as well, using a more general word for man.
----------------------

As for the allegedly absent "with", if referring to the first occurrence ( lie with mankind), Strong's says êth is "probably from H579; properly nearness (used only as a preposition or adverb), near; hence generally with, by, at, among, etc.: - against, among, before, by, for, from, in (-to), (out) of, with. Often with another preposition prefixed."

It is often translated "before," where "near" would be perfectly acceptable, as in as in Pro 17:24: "Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth."

Likewise "among", as in Jos 23:12: "Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them,"

Or "beside", as in 1Ki 9:26: And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom.

If referring to mishkâb, that does mean bed, and is used elsewhere with "women" as to mean to lay with. (Lev 20:13; Jdg 21:11)

It says male shall not lay in beds of woman. That is the abomination.

The Hebrew is not definitively rendered as you suppose, and you must now consider how theologically tenable your interpretation is. In Lev. 20, punishments for sins of chp. 18 are provided, in which v. 13 states,

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " Or in Young's literal trans,:

`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

So you have both the male and the female being put to death, because they laid together. That would certainly stop the Middle East conflict. This cannot refer to laying with a wife when she is in her period, as that is specifically dealt with in 20:18.

As for more on creative pro homosexual apologetic, pray to see and see http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org...the_Bible.html

it is hard for thee to kick against the goads. (Acts 9:5)

[Vertetuesi]

Good reply Daniel. I'd like to add a note on Exodus 23:19.

Here we are not to imagine a great cauldron full of nanny goat's milk into which pieces of said goat's kid's flesh have been placed for seething. Rather, this is a contracted manner of speech not uncommon in the Bible, e.g. where Jesus says:

"For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke 23:31)

No one imagines that he's saying that his own crucifixion took place within the bark of a green tree, let alone that the devastation of AD 66-70 would take place within the xylem of a dry one.

Rather, what he means is that they took place in the time of a green/dry tree, that is, in relatively benign/aggravated general conditions.

Ditto Jeremiah 12:5 - "how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?" - that is, in the time of such a flooding, i.e. a time of disturbance in the land.

And so on.

So back to Exodus: the text means that no kid is to be killed for eating in the time of its mother's milk, that is, before it has been weaned. Meaning that they should let it grow some before slaughter.

Remember that OT laws like this often have an antitypical NT reference, which here can easily be seen to be that we mustn't rush either ourselves or others into actions or responsibilities for which we/they are not ready. "Lay hands suddenly on no man," "because you are not able to bear it," etc.

[daniel1212]

Praise be to God.

As re. Ex. 23:19, this is a typical polemic, and is more of a tactic, as they do not want the answer, and which the link i provided goes into. In short, the Bible defines itself, and both establishes the Old cov. as well as the New, which is distinctly "not according to the covenant i made with your fathers.." (Jer. 3:1:31-34) The way it is different is revealed after the institution of that New cov., after Jesus death and res., and under it the types of laws which were typological are revealed, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 4:16-17; Heb. 9:10) and as not binding as regards literal obedience, which the destruction of the Temple helped to affirm, as these foretold N.T. realities. However, by walking after the Spirit we will fulfill the righteousness intent of the law. (Rm. 8:4) I think i am much just a shadow in that regard.

As regards the meaning of Ex. 23:19, Clarke comments, in part,

Dr. Cudworth is supposed to have given it its true meaning by quoting a MS. comment of a Karaite Jew, which he met with, on this passage. “It was a custom of the ancient heathens, when they had gathered in all their fruits, to take a kid and boil it in the milk of its dam; and then, in a magical way, to go about and besprinkle with it all their trees and fields, gardens and orchards; thinking by these means to make them fruitful, that they might bring forth more abundantly in the following year.” - Cudworth on the Lord’s Supper, 4th.
I give this comment as I find it, and add that Spenser has shown that the Zabii used this kind of magical milk to sprinkle their trees and fields, in order to make them fruitful. Others understand it of eating flesh and milk together; others of a lamb or a kid while it is sucking its mother, and that the paschal lamb is here intended, which it was not lawful to offer while sucking.

Keil & Delitzsch, in part, provides,

Luther and others suppose it to refer to the cooking of the kid, before it has been weaned from its mother's milk. But the actual reference is to the cooking of a kid in the milk of its own mother, as indicating a contempt of the relation which God has established and sanctified between parent and young, and thus subverting the divine ordinances. As kids were a very favourite food (Gen_27:9, Gen_27:14; Jdg_6:19; Jdg_13:15; 1Sa_16:20), it is very likely that by way of improving the flavour they were sometimes cooked in milk. According to Aben Ezra and Abarbanel, this was a custom adopted by the Ishmaelites; and at the present day the Arabs are in the habit of cooking lamb in sour milk. A restriction is placed upon this custom in the prohibition before us, but there is no intention to prevent the introduction of a superstitious usage customary at the sacrificial meals of other nations, which Spencer and Knobel have sought to establish as at all events probable, though without any definite historical proofs, and for the most part on the strength of far-fetched analogies.

[repeater75]

I realize this thread is farily old, but given the recent revival of the same old claims by homosexual activists, I think the following info could be helpful:

1) Get James White's book The Same Sex Controversy which gets into the details of the activsts' arguments and leaves them in sackcloth and ashes.

2) Listen to James address every point of Matthew Vines' recent presentation that attempts to provide a refutation of every scripture prohibiting homosexuality.

The audio is a FREE mp3 download and it is worth it to hear every minute.

[Johnny Poochie]

There's a similar thread with John Reece's input:

Lev 18:22- here we go again!