Homosexuality in and of itself is 'not' a sin in the Bible..

[Aaron Lindahl]

MeMyself... What a shame that you don't seem to know very much about the Bible on these subjects, or anything at all about the original Hebrew and Greek words of Scripture.

The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe her feelings towards Naomi is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

[MeMyself]

MeMyself... What a shame that you don't seem to know very much about the Bible on these subjects, or anything at all about the original Hebrew and Greek words of Scripture.

Another rude attack on me as a person.  I forgive you.

The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe her feelings towards Naomi is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

I just could not disagree more. There is NOTHING that even hints of them being lesbians.  It is a beautiful story of philia love.  It is one of my very favorites.  You accuse me of limited understanding, what I will admit is to being naive because the twist you put on it shocked and angered me.

Speaking of Adam and Eve...if God is so keen on homosexuality, why was the partner suitable for Adam that He made NOT another man?

[MeMyself]

Aaron, do you know of any other places that dabaq is used?  Do you always read it through the eyes of Adam to Eve?

I just did a quick search and it is used in other places that do NOT imply any hint of a sexual nature.

[MeMyself]

Here is a link in case anyone is interested in dabaq and its uses elsewhere.

oops! LOL forgot the link   

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/dabaq.html

[skeeter]

JohnB... if your attention span and reading comprehension level aren't up to the task of reading my detailed and scholarly posts, and you desire something short and 'simple'.. then this conversation is definitely not for such as you.

oh my. 

I think you stepped into some of that 'poo' on this one...

detailed and scholarly posts - boastful much?  'cause you ARE saying p1 and other writings you've posted here are actually yours - correct?

You also posted that you are a Christian,  then you shouldn't mind giving a very short testimony.  (just a few lines)   thx!

[skeeter]

Oh.my.gosh.



Father, forgive them. 

This is truly heartbreaking! Utterly and totally so...

Aaron, please, I am begging you stop this scripture twisting.

yep.  I agree.  I wouldn't 'beg' him to stop tho - that's what he wants.
everything's about sex...

[chosenone]

Wycliffes... you get a gold star for creativity!!  Love it.

Here's another Biblical same-sex love story for ya':

In the entire Bible, there are only two books named after women. One is Esther, which tells the story of a Jewish woman who becomes Queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction by "coming out" as Jewish to her husband, the king. The other is Ruth, which tells the story of two women who love and support one another through difficult times. Both books contain powerful messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it is the story of Ruth that addresses the question I raised before: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?

At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we're introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they'll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi's sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country. But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

Note: For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father's house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father's household or a wife in their husband's household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (See note 1.) The constant biblical command to "look after widows and orphans" stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

You probably remember the story of Adam and Eve, as recorded in Genesis 2. After God creates Adam, he is terribly lonely. None of the animals God has created -- magnificent as they are -- can meet Adam's deep need for companionship. So God puts Adam into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and creates Eve. When Eve is presented to Adam, he exclaims, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh . . . !" Finally, Adam had a human companion.

The next verse in the text then draws an important theological conclusion from Adam's experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and "cling" ("dabaq") to his wife. (Genesis 2:24) And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God's will for them -- for a man and woman to leave their parents' home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as "clinging" to one another.

But what about people who aren't heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God's blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, "Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried," she wasn't talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn't do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi's life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth's eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth's love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth "who loves you, is more to you than seven sons." (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship. If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth reads like the story of two women in love.

Instinctively, and perhaps unwittingly, Christians throughout the centuries have acknowledged the validity of this interpretation. The vow Ruth makes to Naomi (quoted above) has been read at Christian weddings for centuries because it so perfectly captures the essence of the love that should exist between spouses. It seems more than a little inconsistent to use these words to define and celebrate spousal love, but then adamantly insist that those who originally spoke the words did not love each other like spouses.

How low will you sink? As has been said here, its possible for 2 people of the same sex to be close (as in this case here a MIL and a DIL are close) and be like sisters or brothers, as Jesus is with us, without it being in anyway sinful or sexual.
I would be very worried using 2 such relationship in the Bible to try and justify your sinful behaviour, but you have believed the lies that other gays have taught you instead of relying on Gods truth.   Its very concerning that you have been so blinded, but thats what happens when people refuse to follow Gods ways and go off on the wrong path.

[chosenone]

i'll repost this

Read about Pauls teaching on marriage. ALWAYS to a man and a women, a husband and his wife.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/paul-s-inspired-teachings-marriage

Please show me where there is any teaching for 2 men who are married? Or 2 women?   PLease show me where sex is taught about for anyone other than men and women?

[skeeter]

No... chosenone is the one who hasn't answered mine.  I suggest you read the posts more closely so you don't keep making false statements about who said what.

and I suggest you start reading a Bible - including the parts that don't revolve around sex.

I really doubt you'll be bothered by anymore posts on YOUR thread. 

We all need to remember that if you post any other thread, you really don't want anyone to post ON it. 

[SwordMaster]

Aaron Lindahl said...

This post of course is intended for Christians who have a problem with homosexuality:

It goes against all common sense and reason to believe homosexuals are unnatural.

That all depends on whether we are going to accept your claim over God's clear words...

Jude 1:7
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Romans 1:26-27
26   For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
27   and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

God says homosexual behavior is against nature, that means unnatural. I will take God's Word over your claim.

Homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual sex are 'not' sins in and of themselves.

If you spent more time reading the Bible instead of cherry-picking passages that you think teach that, then you might see things more clearly...

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

The word "lies" above in the Hebrew is shakab, and in the Niphal and Pual of Hebrew, means to have sex with, to commit a sexual act. The word here is in the Niphal, therefore it refers to homosexuals committing a homosexual act. Therefore, God once again says that homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual acts are sins in and of themselves - again you look God in the face and apparently call Him a liar. I would be careful where that takes you...

[/b]To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all. Homosexuals are born in every place around the planet; from the smallest mountain village to the smallest desert village. It is not something 'learned' or 'taught' to them. It is innately the way they were born, as God created them, and it is 'natural' for them to be attracted to, and fall in love with, their own gender, upon reaching puberty, just as it is 'natural' for a heterosexual to feel and do the same with the opposite gender upon reaching puberty.

Negative...God does not create what He labels as sin. No person is born homosexual...they are created in a state of innocence, what God calls good, and then they choose that way of life through various pathways that usually (in my experience with such persons) include some kind of demonic work. Children are exposed to demonic activity through their parents' activities, and can become possessed either fully or partially, which we have numerous examples of in the Scriptures. I have talked to guys that were at one time fighting against homosexual urges that KNEW they had a demon, I am not speaking from no experience in this area. And after the demon was cast out, all homosexual desire left immediately, they were free.

Levitical purity laws, (which are mistranslated in almost all English Bibles concerning homosexuality) do not apply to Christians, and so the people who bring up Leviticus to attack gay people with are gravely mistaken.

Wrong...it does not matter whether or not they have any bearing upon Christians today...the fact is that God does not change. If something was wrong regarding relationship with God in the OT then it is still wrong in the NT...and we have ample passages that address homosexuality in the NT, and you address later here in your OP...

Jesus and homosexuality:


It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He created a comprehensive list of sins that would bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is even more worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. The conclusion is that Jesus did not consider it a sin.

Nice try, but that is not a comprehensive list...if you want a comprehensive list you need to take all of the passages that address the issue cumulatively, and when we do that, homosexuality is definitely on the list.

The options open to a Christian:

A Christian has two options with regard to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

1. To accept a favorite (and safely familiar) English translation as accurately containing the words of the original authors. This is a simple and straightforward approach because biblical passages related to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (LGBT) in English Bibles are universally condemning. No further effort is needed.

I thought you were trying to convince us otherwise?

2. To base the interpretation of these passages on the most ancient available Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. This is as close as we are able to get to the original autograph copies written by the author(s). This option is much more demanding, and made even more difficult because the precise meaning of some of the Greek words are unknown and can only be inferred. Even worse, a convincing case can be made that 1 Timothy was written by a second century forger, many decades after Paul was executed.

First, I do not believe we have even one Greek word in the NT that is not known precisely as to its meaning, so that claim is out the window.

Second, we have numerous manuscripts and partial manuscripts that all demonstrate no possible forgeries, all codified copies of Paul's original letters, so that claim is also out the window. Perhaps you are reading things from others who are trying to postulate homosexuality is not a sin, and are therefore perverting the Bible. I would stop reading such things if I were you.

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word.


The word "arsenokoitai" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy:

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been uniquely created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century.

Neither you nor the person you copied the above from has a very good grasp of the Greek here. Arsenokoitai is the plural masculine form of arsenokoites, a male who lies in bed (bed-chambering) with another male. It means a homosexual or homosexual acts. You (and the one you copied) speak of it as if that is the root word, but it is not.

More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:

• "homosexuals," (NASB);
• "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
• "homosexual offenders," (NIV).

Yes, and those three designations all fit the Greek meaning nicely.

In doing this, they appear to have little respect or attention to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the scope of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.

[/quote]

Again, whoever you are quoting is playing games, and you seem to be going right along with him. Homosexual means a male engaging in sex with another male, or, a female engaging in sex with another female. It describes two people of the same sex engaging in sexual conduct with each other. Therefore, homosexual means either two men together having sex, or two women together having sex. None of your points so far are panning out to be true...

The author of 1 Timothy also used "arsenokoitai." The KJV translated it similarly:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

And what is your point above?

Christian theologians generally agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians circa 55 CE. However, they differ on the authorship and date of the three Pastoral Epistles -- 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

• Some scholars believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles during the interval 62 to 64 CE just before his death.

Since Paul wrote the letters, or transcribed them to another in his immediate presence, they would have had to have been written before his death.

• Many other scholars believe that they were written up to 85 years after Paul's execution, circa 100 to 150 CE by an unknown person who pretended to be Paul.

We need to keep secular scholars out of the equation...since they are not interested in discovering the truth of any Biblical matter.

What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."


Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.


Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

Your source does not give any of his sources, and the only references that I can find regarding Greek for "paiderasste" is homosexual sources, I can find no actual ancient Greek sources for the word...perhaps it is made up or a modern Greek word, in either case what has been written above is outside the scope of your discussion. The meaning of arsenokoítēs in actual word for word correlation is not man-beds, it is man-chambering...which means two men having sex with each other.

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) states that the passage refers to:

"... both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

What page and section?

Many religious scholars agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to male pedophiles who are also child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. to consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

None of the above meanings pertain to arsenokoítēs...I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is not accurate in the least bit.

Male prostitutes: One scholar has provided an interesting analysis of 1 Corinthians. He noticed a pattern in verse 9 and 10. They are composed up of pairs or triads of related groups of people:

The lawless & disobedient: two near synonyms

The ungodly & sinners: also two near synonyms

The unholy & profane: two synonyms

The murderers of fathers & murderers of mothers & manslayers: three kinds of murderers

Whoremongers & "arsenokoitai" & menstealers

Liars & perjurers etc.: again, two near synonyms.

Again, what is your source? What is the name of the source? What page number and section? Who is this so-called "scholar" that you are quoting? Perhaps he is not a scholar at all...or perhaps he is a secular scholar which in this case means his words are pretty much worthless.

In the original Greek, the first of the three words is "pornov." An online Greek lexicon notes that this is Strong's Number 4205, and was derived from the Greek word "pernemi" which means to sell. Its meanings are:

A man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire.

A male prostitute.

A man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator.

Yes, but this has absolutely no bearing upon homosexuality...

The second term is "arsenokoitai" which has not been given a Strong Number because it is a made-up word that is almost never found in the Greek language other than in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.

No, it does not have its own number because it is not the actual word, that is the stem word in the plural masculine form. Its Strong's number is G733, and again, the word is arsenokoítēs.

The last of the three words is "andrapodistes," the stem of the word andrapodistai. It is Strong's Number 405 which means:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer -- one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Again, this has no bearing upon homosexuality.

If we assume that the three words refer to a common theme, as the other five groups are, then we have to look for some sense which the words have in common. Cannon suggests:

"pornoi" refers to an enslaved male prostitute.

"arsenokoitai" refers to a man who forces sex on an enslaved male prostitute

"andrapodistes" refers to a person who kidnaps and enslaves people.

Your definitions here are vastly inaccurate, you need to check this source of yours, for I assume he is making up his own meanings in order to give support to a homosexual agenda.

Again, the common theme is slavery.

Again, the Greek definition of arsenokoítēs is man-chambering (word for word correlation) and means homosexual acts, not slavery.

Translating "arsenokoitai" as a boy who is kept as a sex slave has some support in at least two Bible translations:

As noted above, a footnote in the New American Bible (NAB), interprets "arsenokoitai" as a " boy prostitute."

The Jerusalem Bible translates the triad in 1 Timothy as: "those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men." In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the same word "arsenokoitai" is translated as "catamite."

An acurate translation of 1 Timothy 1:10 would be: "...male prostitutes, boys who have sex with men, and slave dealers who enslave them both."

Nothing you have stated above (or copied) detracts from the terms used for homosexual acts, you have not dented the Scriptural meaning of homosexuality and its condemnation one bit.

So it is entirely within Christ's teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

Whoever you are quoting from is deeply seated in sin and a sinful mind set, grossly perverting the Scriptures.

For example, here is one verse that many Christians use to persecute gay people with, (even though Levitical purity laws do not apply to Christians) but don't realize that their Bible has it translated falsely.


Leviticus 18:22 - The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."(KJV)

The honest and correct translation:

"And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Below, is a word by word translation of this verse:

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא

V'et-zachar lo tishkav mishk'vei ishah to'evah hu.

(Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

First, Christians don't "persecute" homosexuals, telling them the truth in love is not persecution, but nice try.

Second, we are not dealing with modern Hebrew, but ancient Hebrew, and according to the original ancient text, that is not the words that are used. They are...

     lo             shâkab                            êth                  zâkâr      mishkâb        'ishshâh            hû                    tô‛êbah

no, not        lie down                with, together with       male     lying down      female      3rd Pers Sing.        abomination
            (figuratively - have sex)                                              (fig. for sex)                      (he, she, it)

V'et - This is two words. First, V', which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.

zachar - This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far reads And with a male.

lo - This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in this case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicated verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to translate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those words, so we won't add this word to our translation yet.

tishkav - This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed.

There is no "tishkav" in the ancient Hebrew text here, so where is your source getting it from?

The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it meanslie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into English will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gender of the pronoun.

The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previous Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) shalt not lie down. mishk'vei - This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word "of" between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk'vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions:

Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn't always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn't. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in English.

All of the above would be fine if the word was being used literally, but it is not. It's figurative meaning is having sex, therefore none of the above means anything for the conversation that I can see.

The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of.

someone with more Hebrew experience may say otherwise, but I don't see it here. The words are not in the order in which you are placing them, nor does the meaning of the "beds" is in line with the meaning of the text, as pointed out above.

ishah - This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to "in a woman's bed."And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed.

(Note: The word mishk'vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means "thy father," and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as "to thy father's bed." As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon ':', and serves only to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence). English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a period, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed;


to'evah - This is a noun. It translates as abomination. Without a definite article, it translates as an abomination. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next word.


hu - This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebrew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew text. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well schooled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like so many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the same, but the grammar was wrong.


I want to repeat that: His meaning remained the same, only the grammar was wrong.The word הוא hu means both he and it. It means it when applied to masculine nouns. But to'evah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have used the word היא hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine nouns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do with men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of the table; it's simply grammatical.)


The next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, is and are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context.


The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God's name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don't use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can't even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can't, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is


Finally, we put in the words an abomination: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Tell your source that it was a nice try, but he fails. All that in an effort to twist the meaning of the text...what a waste of time.

This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman's bed together, for whatever reason.

Ya...that sure makes sense, doesn't it???

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term 'abomination' was an intentionally bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebrew. It is used with a set of different situations in the King James Bible.

tô‛êbah means abomination, it is not a "bad translation," that is what the word means...nice try. You might be able to get uneducated people to believe this nonsense, but that's about it.

Nothing you have presented was either factual nor very helpful in your argument...but as I said, it was a "nice try."

[SwordMaster]

I'll pray for you as well, fish. Thank you.

Although I am all for anyone praying for Fish, I really don't think your prayers will do much good.

God doesn't answer the prayers of those who are not walking in obedience to Him...that is Scriptural teaching, not just my opinion.

[SwordMaster]

JohnB... if your attention span and reading comprehension level aren't up to the task of reading my detailed and scholarly posts, and you desire something short and 'simple'.. then this conversation is definitely not for such as you.

oh my. 

I think you stepped into some of that 'poo' on this one...

detailed and scholarly posts - boastful much?  'cause you ARE saying p1 and other writings you've posted here are actually yours - correct?

You also posted that you are a Christian,  then you shouldn't mind giving a very short testimony.  (just a few lines)   thx!

Skeeter...I have not seen anything much "scholarly" in his OP...not even the quotes that he didn't cite by title, page number, etc....., so I don't know what he is talking about.

[kensington]

Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?  It's plain to see he either loves typing or listening to the clacking of his own keyboard.

I just wonder why he goes so far to complicate the scriptures, pretending to be some world renowned scholar who has knowledge far above that of simple man. When the reality is that the Bible was written on a third grade reading level.  So, he thinks he can teach the 3rd grade. He doesn't know jack about this sin as the word speaks to it. 

Or the Holy nature of God.  Not at all. And I am not even going to bother to explain that. 

[Red Baker]

I'll pray for you as well, fish. Thank you.

I would not waste my time praying for you~ you have proven by your many ramblings, and vain jangling~(1 Timothy 1:6) that you do not deserve the prayers of the faithful~ John 17:9

[JohnDB]

Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?  It's plain to see he either loves typing or listening to the clacking of his own keyboard.

I just wonder why he goes so far to complicate the scriptures, pretending to be some world renowned scholar who has knowledge far above that of simple man. When the reality is that the Bible was written on a third grade reading level.  So, he thinks he can teach the 3rd grade. He doesn't know jack about this sin as the word speaks to it. 

Or the Holy nature of God.  Not at all. And I am not even going to bother to explain that.

Because they are troll feeders.  There hasn't been a troll yet that hasn't gotten a full five course meal from a few members of this forum.

Every one knows that homosexuality is a sin that leads to eternal death.
This guy is either trying to justify himself (as many homosexuals do) or gain access to the sheep pen so he can fleece the flock (as wolves do)

Not really sure which.

[Jd34]

Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?  It's plain to see he either loves typing or listening to the clacking of his own keyboard.

Also, he has been plain about leaving it at to "agree to disagree".

I would not waste my time praying for you~

Sounds like that certain  southern Bible Belt attitude coming out in you Red.

Aaron has came here with his guns loaded and has blasted a lot of passion. This is what he has done here but on a different level:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bEcilTcjk9g

Everywhere I turn homosexuality seems to generate sin.

It's a no brainer and its easy for me to simply say that I agree to disagree with Aaron on this particular subject matter.

[Red Baker]

Sounds like that certain  southern Bible Belt attitude coming out in you Red.

John 17:9~

2 King 3:14

  .  "And Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee."

Thank God there are men like JohnDB which have the spirit of Jehoshaphat concerning wicked people who go after strange flesh, be whatever that strange flesh be.

[Jd34]

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

[Red Baker]

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

Thanks being said, let me add this: He did not saved his people so that they could continually serve sin~he also saved us from the power of sin reigning in our mortal bodies...and he that is serving sin, does not know God, and are none of his.

1 John 2:4

  .  "He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

And a hundred more such scriptures could be given, but they would serve no purpose to those who are in love with their sins!  By saying that, I am not speaking of you, but of Sodomites who claim that they love God, with their male lover in their arms!

[k-pappy]

Memyself... you don't need to 'beg'.. if you cannot stand the truth, then stop torturing yourself and simply stop coming onto, and commenting on, my 'thread'.  There are 'loads' of other threads on here where you can safely reassure yourself amongst others of your type that what you believe is correct on this issue.

Let's be clear:  you are not telling the truth.  You are bending God's word so far you actually claiming it says the exact opposite of what it does.

It is clear you do not know Greek or Hebrew.

It is clear you do not understand context.

It is clear you do not understand ancient culture.

Yet, you act as an "authority" in order to subvert and twist the Bible to suit your own self desires and beliefs.

When people point out how you are wrong, you make personal attacks against them.

I'm sorry, there is very little truth in your posts.

[Ransomovitch]

Hello all, I am married to my gorgeous wife of 29 years and want to tell you about our nephew who at aged 5 was exhibiting unlearned feminine behaviours including dressing up in girls clothes, yet was surrounded by an entirely heterosexual wider family. At 16 he was going with girls 'to prove' he was a red-blood hetero. After a lot of anguish and self harm and incredible inner torture he came out to my daughter. My view on all of the previous discussion on this thread is this: as Christians, we can argue the finite points but have we won people for Jesus? I believe we are called to build bridges to the saving love of Jesus not burn them. I read a great line recently - God judges, the Holy Spirit convicts and we are to love.

How often we get this around the wrong way! As humans, we also all of us have our 'paralyzers' - you know, the particular topic where before we know it our emotions have kicked in often clouding all objectivity. For many years, homosexuality and particularly the act itself was my paralyser. That is until I read that line - God judges, the Holy Spirit convicts and we are to love.

J - my nephew and his lovely and well-mannered respectful boyfriend A are often round at our house. They know we are Christians and because they are not part of our church or any church for that matter, we try to make our house a place where they can see the love of God in practical operation. Our place is not to point fingers, condemn or judge. My wife and I know that this non-judgmental approach has forced J and A lto completely reappraise their viewpoint on church and on Who Jesus is and it is our prayer that in God's good timing, His Holy Spirit will meet with these two lovely boys and He will speak in love to the very heart of where He needs to. Our ears are also always open to hear when God wants us to speak a word on His behalf to these two young men but so far, all we have done is open our home and of course..our fridge!!!

Personally, I am very glad that Jesus has melted my particular paralyzer and I hope this post helps in some way.

[chosenone]

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

Amen. I have great compassion for those who struggle with same sex attraction, it must be awful.  God LOVES them and longs for them to know Him and come to him.
However when you get a man who actually claims to be a  believer, twisting some scripture, grossly distorting other scripture and totally ignoring scripture that many have posted here that clearly shows he is wrong, to try and  justify his serious sin, then thats a totally different matter altogether.

A Christian who struggles with a sin(as we all do at times,) but who knows they need help and forgiveness deserves all the help we can give them, but when that person wont even admit that their life style is wrong, then there is no way we can help them until they repent and come to God for forgiveness.

[Jd34]

However when you get a man who actually claims to be a  believer, twisting some scripture, grossly distorting other scripture and totally ignoring scripture that many have posted here that clearly shows he is wrong, to try and  justify his serious sin, then thats a totally different matter altogether.

That's the offensive part and that is where the path begins to widen. For me , scripture and The Holy Spirit must go hand and hand. Without The Holy Spirit, scripture is just words to me.. I see a lot of words in this thread.

Aaron is proof on how we  can adjust scripture to how we want it and how we magnify what we want to hear and ignore what we don't. (just like everything else)

But anyone with the The Holy Spirit knows It can not be ignored no matter how hard you have to try to make scripture go against. I think that is what is going on here.

[MeMyself]

Why is anyone even arguing with this guy?

I will answer for myself, and no, its not close to what the "helpful" post that spoke for us guessed at.   

even though it may look like Truth is falling on deaf ears that can't hear because they are being tickled, my hope is that one seed of Truth tossed into the conversation, lay dormant and that in God's timing, it might take root and grow.

Also, it makes ME have to dig into the Word to defend my faith and convictions more deeply.  I think that is a good thing.  To challenge myself to go beyond, "this is what I was taught" to, "show me Oh God."  I have a member of my family that believes this theology and when the time comes, I will need to be able to speak on these subjects. So, in a way, its like a "practice round".  I can pray to better respond instead of react when my hard conversation comes...if God sees fit to make it happen that is.

And, I don't hate Aaron or those deceived like him...my heart truly grieves for them, so I don't want to write them off just because they are who they are and believe as they do. 

[Alan]

However when you get a man who actually claims to be a  believer, twisting some scripture, grossly distorting other scripture and totally ignoring scripture that many have posted here that clearly shows he is wrong, to try and  justify his serious sin, then thats a totally different matter altogether.

But anyone with the The Holy Spirit knows It can not be ignored no matter how hard you have to try to make scripture go against. I think that is what is going on here.

Good point, if we are led by the Spirit the truth becomes quite clear to us   

[Ransomovitch]

I think that as long as we remember that judgment begins in the House of God (we are given permissionin truth and love to admonish one another within the church) and that any judgments directed at any individuals outside of the church (unless clearly directed to do so by The Holy Spirit) these judgments however well-intentioned will mostly only alienate us further from those who need to be 'brought in' to God's family. Don't you know it is Gods kindness that leads to repentance. Titus

[chosenone]

I think that as long as we remember that judgment begins in the House of God (we are given permissionin truth and love to admonish one another within the church) and that any judgments directed at any individuals outside of the church (unless clearly directed to do so by The Holy Spirit) these judgments however well-intentioned will mostly only alienate us further from those who need to be 'brought in' to God's family. Don't you know it is Gods kindness that leads to repentance. Titus

I so agree. The op here says he is a believer, so its very different from a non believing person who knows no better.

[JohnDB]

Thank God there are men like JohnDB

No! Thank God for dying for our sins.

Thanks being said, let me add this: He did not saved his people so that they could continually serve sin~he also saved us from the power of sin reigning in our mortal bodies...and he that is serving sin, does not know God, and are none of his.

1 John 2:4

  .  "He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

And a hundred more such scriptures could be given, but they would serve no purpose to those who are in love with their sins!  By saying that, I am not speaking of you, but of Sodomites who claim that they love God, with their male lover in their arms!

Yeah...he aint real happy with me.  I take his "majors" and turn them into minors.

But the destruction of Sodom, and the stoning of any caught in adultery should be a clue here.

This type of sex is perversion and the teaching that it isn't is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.