Posted on 07/23/2018 7:40:35 AM PDT by fwdude
What do you do when the biblical text is against your position, explicitly so? What do you do when not one single verse supports your viewpoint? It’s simple. You create new verses out of thin air. You rewrite the Bible to your liking. That’s exactly what biblical scholar Idan Dershowitz has done.
In his New York Times op-ed piece, Dr. Dershowitz summarizes his 2017 academic article published in the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel. (Is it any surprise that the Times decided to publish his piece?)
Dr. Dershowitz claims that, “Before Leviticus was composed, outright prohibitions against homosexual sex — whether between men or women — were practically unheard-of in the ancient world.” And he believes that Leviticus was “created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer.”
He then argues that “an earlier edition of Leviticus . . . may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.” (Note carefully: He means a non-existent edition of Leviticus. A Leviticus that is the figment of his own imagination. A Leviticus without a shred of textual, manuscript support in any ancient language at any period of time.)
Not only so, but Dr. Dershowitz even claims that, “there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men.”
As someone trained in the same scholarly field as Dr. Dershowitz, I can say without equivocation that this is nothing more than scholarly fabrication and should be rejected as complete and utter nonsense.
Let’s remember that: 1) there is not one positive word in the Bible about homosexual practice; 2) every reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is categorically negative; and 3) every scriptural example of marriage and family is heterosexual.
How then does Dr. Dershowitz come to such outrageous conclusions?
He first observes that in the ancient Near Eastern world, “outright prohibitions against homosexual sex — whether between men or women — were practically unheard-of . . . .”
While it is true that such prohibitions are largely lacking in the surrounding, ancient world, there are some laws that prescribe harsh punishment for certain acts of male sodomy. So, this is an overstatement.
More importantly, it appears that homosexual acts were part of ancient Near Eastern idolatrous culture – in other words, part and parcel of the pagan culture which the Bible condemns. No wonder, then, that more emphasis was not put on prohibiting these acts. In fact, Leviticus confirms this, stating that sinful acts like these were widely practiced in the surrounding, ancient world. Israel was not to follow their example! (See Leviticus 18:1-3, 24-30.)
But that is not the heart of Dr. Dershowitz’s argument.
Using a “little detective work,” he claims to have discovered that the alleged “original” text of Leviticus 18 only forbade homosexual incest. All other homosexual acts were permitted.
Not only is this argument entirely without textual support (something that needs to be repeated over and again), but it makes for the bizarre idea that, in ancient Israel, men could have sex with as many men as they desired, without penalty, so long as they were not close blood relatives. Yet they could only have sex with the woman (or, women) they were married to, and at that, with certain purity guidelines.
Being gay in ancient Israel made for quite the party life, and with God’s alleged sanction, at that.
What, then, is the “discovery” that Dr. Dershowitz has made to support this claim?
He argues that in Leviticus 18:7 and 18:14, the specific wording of the Hebrew text masks the fact that, originally, the verses outlawed sex between a man and his father or mother (v. 7) and between a man and his uncle (v. 14). In the current version of Leviticus (again, the one and only version we have), he writes, “A law prohibiting sex with one’s father fades away, and a law against sex with one’s uncle is reinterpreted as a ban on sex with one’s aunt.”
As for Leviticus 18:22, which explicitly prohibits sex between two men (see also Leviticus 20:13), that was allegedly added at a later time in Israelite history. As, Dr. Dershowitz writes, “In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.”
Of course, same-sex relations had never been permissible in ancient Israel (to say it once more, there is zero evidence to support the opposite position), while the two verses cited by Dr. Dershowitz do not support his thesis.
To respond briefly:
1) Because all homosexual relations were forbidden, there was no reason to forbid specific homosexual acts.
2) In contrast, because many heterosexual relations were permissible, it was important to single out which ones were forbidden, which is what Leviticus 18 does.
3) Leviticus 18:7 and 14 forbid sleeping with the wife of your father or the wife of your father’s brother, acts which would also directly shame one’s father. As rendered in the New Jewish Publication Society Version, respectively, “Your father’s nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover; she is your mother — you shall not uncover her nakedness.” And, “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother: do not approach his wife; she is your aunt.”
4) There is no textual evidence – not the slightest linguistic clue of any kind – that Leviticus 18:22 was added later to this chapter.
5) What we call “the Bible” today is based on the texts that we have – in other words, the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek texts that have been passed down through the generations. It is not based on some reconstructed texts created out of thin air.
That means that for all those who hold these texts to be God’s Word, the matter has long been settled: Homosexual practice is forbidden by God, but there is the possibility of forgiveness, redemption, and new life for all who put their trust in the Redeemer.
bookmark
So you don’t like the word of God? You edit and rewrite. That’s what’s going on here.
The left likes to do this. For example, they take the Bible verse which says “Blessed are the peacemakers” and use this to criticize the American military. They take admonitions to help the poor, to mean that we need socialism to help the poor among us with elaborate government programs.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was right, but that's probably the point of creating a separate identity for the Jewish people; to reject what their captors and those around them had considered normal. To hold themselves to higher standards.
The Bible is not a piece of bestselling fad writing to be revised by people following the current fashion like a diet book that goes out of style.
You shall not add anything to what I command you,or take anything away from it, but keep the Commandments of the Lord thy God that I enjoin upon you.
Deuternomy 4:2
This goes far beyond misinterpreting scripture for your own ends.
This is about creating an academic smokescreen that will permit scripture to be REWRITTEN to say something it does not actually say.
Several years ago the Catholic Church engaged in similar mental gymnastics in order to get away with rewriting the Eucharistic Prayer from “Only say the word, and I shall be healed” to “Only enter under my roof, and my soul shall be healed”.
They Vatican was looking to take themselves off the hook on physical healings (even though from the context of the original scripture that is exactly what the Centurion was praying for). So they engaged in this same sort of scholarly hocus-pocus to justify that change.
I insist on saying that prayer the old way.
We need a photo to headline each gay agenda article like the photo of Goebbels that OldEconomyBuyer posts for globull warming stories.
Who could that be? Harvey Milk? Gavin Newsome?
How soon until Commie Popie Frankie cites and supports this?
Perverts have been trying to justify their particular perversions since the dawn of time!
Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The mainstream protestant churches have openly embraced gay and abortion, leaving behind all that has always been Christian.
They don’t like what it says in the Gospels, so they just ignore what they don’t like and create for themselves a God in their image.
Yep. They incessantly and unwittingly parrot the two lies of their father:
"Hath God said?" and "You shall not surely die."
Didn’t they try this a few years back with the “queen james bible”?
God does allow man to deceive himself. This kind of attempt is laughable, coming from a “scholar”, but it shows the grip and power deception can have.
God not only allows self deception in the wicked, He actually sends them a “strong delusion.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
This is Romans 1:18-end in a nut shell. How do people end up this blind? God gives them over to a reprobate mind and “good becomes evil, and evil becomes good” (That’s Isaiah).
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
“’Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.
Evil people will always give you (what they think is) a good reason they should be able to do anything they want.
It’s up to reasoned good people to object.
I have no idea where/if you are going to Mass but everywhere I have been the prayer has always been, from my childhood memories (and I am 55) on:
"Lord I am not worthy to receive You but only say the word and I shall be healed" (still inadvertently comes out that way occasionally)To me the meaning is exactly the same, it now almost exactly mirrors the centurion's(maybe Longinus) prayer just swap son for soul. It puts me in the centurion's place, unworthy and begging our Lord to heal my soul as if I were asking for the urgent healing of my son(or daughter). I do both regularly.and now is:
"Lord I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed"
7
Should I take it that the Dr. Dershowitz is himself gay? This kind of effort doesn’t doesn’t come out of thin air...
Simply put - the man is damned, and by his own words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.