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.
Don’t know about that. What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah seems like a very overt communication of a prohibition, imo.
Didn’t Moses write Leviticus?
And I’m also wondering when things will be completely turned around so that critics of homosexuality will be the ones put to death. (No, I don’t support putting homos to death; Christ has already paid the penalty for all our sins.)
“So you don’t like the word of God? You edit and rewrite.”
The Torah, right?
As I understand it, the Canaanites, whose land the Israelites were destined to occupy, were into all sorts of degeneracy. Therefore, all these rules were handed down by God, through Moses, to make sure that the Israelites didn’t absorb bad habits from the people around them.
God basically firebombed Sodom, Gomorrah and the entire plain that they sat on, save for a small village where Lot and his daughters had taken refuge.
This is undoubtedly how Muslims look at America (although from what I’ve heard about their fascination with little boys, they’re deluding themselves about their purity.)
Gay/Lesbian sex is an ABOMINATION to the Lord. PERIOD! God says so many times in His Word, the bible. The only thing that can justify it are LIES, because it cannot be justified.
a·bom·i·na·tion
noun: a thing that causes disgust or hatred. a feeling of hatred.
atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, evil, crime, monstrosity, anathema, bane, detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility
abomination in Hebrew translates to abomination in English
abomination in Greek translates to abomination in English
REPENT! Many have. Jesus can forgive ANYTHING!
One might almost wish for the "good old days" when the main issue was Arianism, or Nestorianism. At least the Arians and Nestorians never debated what we euphemistically call today "lifestyle issues."
And yes, I said almost. Heresy is heresy, regardless of where from orthodoxy it swerves away,
Actually, the newer translation is more reflective of the literal meaning of the communion prayer from the traditional Latin Mass.
“Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.”
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
The Latin says (and said, and has said for centuries): "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo sanabitur anima mea" -- "Lord, I am not worthy that [you] should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" (that's a word-for-word translation). The old translation eliminated the "under my roof" part, which is taken directly from the story of the healing of the centurion's servant in the Gospel.
The new translation restores it. It was never removed from the Latin in the first place.
The REVERSED STANDARD VERSION?
That’s not going to happen.
In exactly the same way, they did that with Onanism, too (contracepted sex acts.)
bkmk
an aside, regarding you use of the term hocus-pocus.
Some believe it originates from a corruption or parody of the Catholic liturgy of the Eucharist, which contains the phrase “Hoc est enim corpus meum”, meaning This is my body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hocus_pocus_(magic)
A prime example of what happens when people mutilate Sacred Scripture for their own purposes:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html
There is a verse in Peter somewhere:
“Leave not the reading of the Scriptures to the ignorant, lest they wrest their own destruction.”
It used to be printed on one of the facing leafs of old Catholic Bibles.
From “Who am I to judge”, to “”Gay” marriage is blessed” WON’T happen with Commie Popie Frankie?!
The Fraud once told us he believed marriage is between a man and a woman, too....
For example, Romans 1:27: “Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
That sounds like the gay 1980s until now and I don’t think rewriting Leviticus is gonna fix it.
Pope Francis condemns eugenic abortion and fake marriage (link)
and
Pope Francis says Catholic Church shouldn't recognize gay families
and
Pope Francis: Same-sex couples are not families
and
Don't applaud Pope Francis' stance on homosexuality: it's still in line with Catholic teachings
and
Pope Francis to Italian Bishops: Don't Let Gays Into the Seminary
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.