Homosexuality translations

[ccmnxc]

This is something that I’ve been wondering about for awhile, as I heard it several months ago. I was in a debate about homosexuality when the person I was debating with threw me for a bit of a loop. They said that the English translation of the Bible we use today , when talking about homosexuality, doesn’t fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. Basically, what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Has onyone come across this argument, and how did you respond? I was told that most experts who studied these languages and texts agreed with this viewpoint.

 

[bzkoss236]

This is something that I’ve been wondering about for awhile, as I heard it several months ago. I was in a debate about homosexuality when the person I was debating with threw me for a bit of a loop. They said that the English translation of the Bible we use today , when talking about homosexuality, doesn’t fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. Basically, what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Has onyone come across this argument, and how did you respond? I was told that most experts who studied these languages and texts agreed with this viewpoint.

You should ask him/her to elaborate on that and to show evidence for their argument. Basically, they made the claim, they need to step up and provide the evidence for the claim, otherwise it’s all just hot air.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

I’m sure it’s something somone somewhere in the gay militant camps came up with to try to discredit a Christians stance against same sex marriage. Let them try and post their argument but I guarantee it’s only speculation and theory. Homosexual relations go against natural law and common sense. Do we really need the Bible to tell us that if everyone were gay we would go extinct? Common sense tells us this!

 

[NonServiam]

Homosexual relations go against natural law and common sense. Do we really need the Bible to tell us that if everyone were gay we would go extinct? Common sense tells us this!

Well there you go. You’ve admitted that your objection to homosexuality doesn’t ultimately stem from the Bible but from (what you insist on calling) “common sense.” Therefore, someone would be completely wasting their time in trying to demonstrate that the Bible isn’t saying what you think it’s saying – even if someone could completely discredit the Bible on this point, you would still have your “common sense” and you wouldn’t be swayed.

So thanks for saving everyone some time.

Incidentally, the argument “if everyone were gay we would go extinct” is laughable as an argument for homosexuality being immoral. If everyone were a female, we would equally go extinct, but that doesn’t make being a female immoral.

And that’s beside the point that we wouldn’t “go extinct” if everyone were gay: there would be plenty of options for continuing the species in such a situation.

 

[anruari]

Well there you go. You’ve admitted that your objection to homosexuality doesn’t ultimately stem from the Bible but from (what you insist on calling) “common sense.” Therefore, someone would be completely wasting their time in trying to demonstrate that the Bible isn’t saying what you think it’s saying – even if someone could completely discredit the Bible on this point, you would still have your “common sense” and you wouldn’t be swayed.

So thanks for saving everyone some time.

Incidentally, the argument “if everyone were gay we would go extinct” is laughable as an argument for homosexuality being immoral. If everyone were a female, we would equally go extinct, but that doesn’t make being a female immoral.

And that’s beside the point that we wouldn’t “go extinct” if everyone were gay: there would be plenty of options for continuing the species in such a situation.

NonServaim
You are being rather uncharitable in your post.

The point that StPatrick was trying to point out is that as catholics we accept several ways of hearing Gods will.
The most common and that which all christians accept is Divine Revelation. (For catholics this is not restricted to but includes the Bible)

however it is not the first.
The first way god speaks to is is through Creation and Nature.
Through this we can see and identify “Natural Law”. - This includes the basic Laws of nature (gravity, electricity, physics, chemistry biology ect) and can directly derive many moral aspects. Sociology and Phsycology point strongly to the moral good for society and the individual from Moral Behaviour.
It is not necessary to acknowledge God to see that some behaviours dammage Society. - This is a branch of morality that can be derived directly from Natural Law without recourse to Divine Revelation. It can therefore be explained to people of all faiths. as Natural Law is something we all share in common. - the Law of Gravity does not only apply to me because I am a Christian. it applies to everyone because we live in this universe.

similarly the laws of physics mean that if I drive a car into a concrete wall at 120 miles an hour I will suffer horrendous injuries and probably die. Telling someone that is not being judgemental of their reckless behaviour. it is warning them about an absoloute truth. If they then do that and die it is not my fault for telling them. it would be my fault if i did NOT warn them.

This is what SaintPatrick333 was getting at when he described his point as “Common Sense”
Society is based on the Family. When we damage the Family we damage society.
You don’t have to believe in any God to see this. It is true for all Humans at all times.

The act of Sodomy causes physical damage to the body. It causes increased risk of passing diseases.
a “Free Love” attitude - promiscuity - spreads diseases (even with condoms - they don’t protect against everything.). and causes massive emotional damage to the people practising it and those near them.
For this reason the Blood Bank in many countries wont accept blood donations from practicing homosexuals. it’s straight science. they are too high a risk.

By Downgrading the name “Marraige” to a reccognition of the romantic attachemnt between any two people regardless of gender or other factors a government massively fails in its primary responsiblility which is to protect and built up society. The foundation of society is the Family.
The foundation of the family is marriage. it is how families are formed.
a same sex couple is not the foundation for a family. It breaks “Natural Law”

 

[anruari]

They said that the English translation of the Bible we use today , when talking about homosexuality, doesn’t fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. Basically, what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Has onyone come across this argument, and how did you respond? I was told that most experts who studied these languages and texts agreed with this viewpoint.

This is both true in some ways and totally untrue in the approach attempted to be put forwad by some of the LGBT lobby.

The bible states in very clear language in both old and new testament that it is shameful, sinfull for 2 men to have sex together.
It expresses this in various manners in different places.

The modern concept of “homosexuality” is just that - a modern concept. The ancient Greeks and many other more permissive cultures have viewed this area of sexuality quite differently. in some cases highly esteeming relations between men or between men and boys. - however these were often not considered to be separate from the the ability to marry and have children with a women.

The modern “Gay Culture” the; stereotypes of gay people as “Butch vs *" “Bear vs Chicken” " vs Lipstick Lesbian” and so many other stereotypes. also the “fabulous and flamboyant” and the “Camp” - whether used by the people themselves or used in a derogatory way by others - These are all purely cultural phenomenon. They do not translate through history.

The Word “Homosexual” to refer to a man (or woman) who identifies him or herself as strongly preferring sexual contact with a person of the same gender is a new word. it has only existed for a few generations.
Many previous societies did not have a corresponding word.
We have many words with subtly different meanings. some of them are listed above.

Also. The bible does not say that being Homosexual is a sin - the concept simply does not exist in the bible or in other literature of the same period.

It says that fornication and adultry are sins. It says that same same gender sex is a sin. It says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Therefore 2 men cannot marry.
2 men must not have sex. (also 2 women must not engage in sexual activity - but that has to be derived it’s not explicit)

The temptations individual people feel are just that: temptations. they are not sins.

Indulging in the “Gay Lifestyle” is sinfull because it is deliberately putting yourself into the path of temptation. it gives grave scandal. it can and does lead others astray. it calls evil good, and good evil.
Again this is different from having “Same sex attraction” it is a lifestyle choice. it is a choice of who your friends are.

 

[thistle]

This is something that I’ve been wondering about for awhile, as I heard it several months ago. I was in a debate about homosexuality when the person I was debating with threw me for a bit of a loop. They said that the English translation of the Bible we use today , when talking about homosexuality, doesn’t fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. Basically, what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Has onyone come across this argument, and how did you respond? I was told that most experts who studied these languages and texts agreed with this viewpoint.

See below. The meaning is very clear.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Rom 1:27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

 

[NonServiam]

NonServaim
You are being rather uncharitable in your post.

I wasn’t trying to be uncharitable: I was trying to respond to the guy’s words. I’m sure that you would agree that the argument “We shouldn’t be gay because if everyone were gay we’d go extinct!” is laughable, and that’s primarily what I wanted to respond to.

The point that StPatrick was trying to point out is that as catholics we accept several ways of hearing Gods will.
The most common and that which all christians accept is Divine Revelation. (For catholics this is not restricted to but includes the Bible)
however it is not the first.

The first way god speaks to is is through Creation and Nature.

Right, so since you’ve got these spiffy arguments based on Creation and Nature, it’s a waste of time for anyone to try to debate the words of the Bible with you.

It is not necessary to acknowledge God to see that some behaviours dammage Society.

I agree with this.

Society is based on the Family. When we damage the Family we damage society.

Even if I granted these premises, they say nothing about gay sex. Two dudes having sex in a motel room does nothing to damage anybody’s family. [Let’s put aside the issue of gay marriage for the time being because the only thing we’re talking about on this thread is homosexuality in general]

The act of Sodomy causes physical damage to the body.

So does boxing.

It causes increased risk of passing diseases.

As does eating undercooked food, like sushi or a very rare steak.

But the fact is that you don’t consider boxing or eating undercooked food to be morally wrong, so “causing physical damage to the body” or “increasing the chance for disease” cannot be sufficient reasons for concluding that an action is immoral. At least, not if you want to be consistent.

 

[kbwall]

I find it interesting that people who want to support claims that go directly against the Church and mainstream Christianity attempt to use translations that nobody ever heard about before and only the highest scholars know anything to prove them wrong.

This is precisely the same logic that heretical sects use to discount the Trinity.

 

[MartinThinking]

tanbooks.com/doct/church_sodomy.htm

Above should help…plus

There are many many people who can think of themselves as very spiritual and have a …"live and let live philosophy in this subject. Some will add pray for the sinner and forget about it in so far as being disgusted by it…

Then there are people who are not even practicing a religion, or possibly practicing a religion and find it absolutely , unspeakably ridiculous and insulting to life and everyone in humanity.
( thats myself since a young guy and hearing about this thing…I simply could not believe it)

St Catherine of Sienna a doctor of the church explains how God thinks its a curse and the most disgusting sin possible…and because of things here mentioned it forms up the WHY
we pray for this sinner…IOW nothing else …nothing else can help. So its sad.

The Doctor also explains in her book called The Dialog that God knows full well that there are many on earth who do not feel as he does. It explains that the ones who have this sensitivity to the gravity of insult to God are scattered.

I’m saying this to help people who choke as I do at the very mention of the word homosexuality and that disgusting act focused on and within rot itself…and seeing many with a tone which is very accepting and nobodys perfect tone, even in the Catholic Church , multitudes who think very slight in this thing. A not only demise to nature, flourish-growth but in degradation represented physically and mentally in mind…which The Saint explains God says the devils themselves are disgusted by as they do remain in there angelic outline…although dislike all that is good, this crime they flee from…So God explains that he wants to save the sinners and that we are to pray for them. I think knowing what your praying for is important.

 

[Newbie2]

You should ask him/her to elaborate on that and to show evidence for their argument. Basically, they made the claim, they need to step up and provide the evidence for the claim, otherwise it’s all just hot air.

I agree. Let’s see the “evidence”.

Well there you go. You’ve admitted that your objection to homosexuality doesn’t ultimately stem from the Bible but from (what you insist on calling) “common sense.” Therefore, someone would be completely wasting their time in trying to demonstrate that the Bible isn’t saying what you think it’s saying – even if someone could completely discredit the Bible on this point, you would still have your “common sense” and you wouldn’t be swayed.

So thanks for saving everyone some time.

Incidentally, the argument “if everyone were gay we would go extinct” is laughable as an argument for homosexuality being immoral. If everyone were a female, we would equally go extinct, but that doesn’t make being a female immoral.

And that’s beside the point that we wouldn’t “go extinct” if everyone were gay: there would be plenty of options for continuing the species in such a situation.

Um…you ignored the Natural law argument. The poster to whom you are responding (StPatrick333) wrote: “Homosexual relations go against natural law ***and ***common sense”, my emphasis.

Would you mind articulating your argument against the Natural Law argument that states that Homosexual relations go against the design of the Creator?

 

[CopticChristian]

This is something that I’ve been wondering about for awhile, as I heard it several months ago. I was in a debate about homosexuality when the person I was debating with threw me for a bit of a loop. They said that the English translation of the Bible we use today , when talking about homosexuality, doesn’t fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. Basically, what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Has onyone come across this argument, and how did you respond? I was told that most experts who studied these languages and texts agreed with this viewpoint.

CC,

First acknoweldge what was said…

I appreciate you’re telling me that the Bible we use today, as it concerns homosexuality does not fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. I understand that you are saying that what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Is that what you are saying?

Then what you do is reframe the conversation…knowing that this yo yo knows squat about the Bible and less about translations. It is something they learned from someone else or some website. They are out there promoting homosexuality with the Bible.

Back to the conversation…

Before we discuss what you have said, I need to ask a question, you say…may I ask you where it is the Bible came from and then let us discuss the English translations you speak of.

So, tell me your understanding of where the Bible came from.

Listen…you have now changed the conversation to “where did the Bible come from” and you then control this conversation as you continue to ask…you can imagine the scholarly answers you will get…

Well, if you cannot tell me where the Bible came from then this discussion makes no sense.

Then of course you can talk about the King James, where that came from etc

 

[ccmnxc]

CC,

First acknoweldge what was said…

I appreciate you’re telling me that the Bible we use today, as it concerns homosexuality does not fit with the cultural context and translation of the original texts. I understand that you are saying that what we think of as homosexuality was actually something different. Is that what you are saying?

Then what you do is reframe the conversation…knowing that this yo yo knows squat about the Bible and less about translations. It is something they learned from someone else or some website. They are out there promoting homosexuality with the Bible.

Back to the conversation…

Before we discuss what you have said, I need to ask a question, you say…may I ask you where it is the Bible came from and then let us discuss the English translations you speak of.

So, tell me your understanding of where the Bible came from.

Listen…you have now changed the conversation to “where did the Bible come from” and you then control this conversation as you continue to ask…you can imagine the scholarly answers you will get…

Well, if you cannot tell me where the Bible came from then this discussion makes no sense.

Then of course you can talk about the King James, where that came from etc

Just for clarification, this was an argument I had heard, and I didn’t know if there was a factual response, whether anyone had encountered this before, and whether or not this was just some lie circling the internet. The belief that homsexuality, as we know it today, doesn’t fit the context of the time is not mine, I just needed a way to counter it.
That being said, I think your argument works pretty well. I’d wager a guess that most people supporting homosexuality would believe the idea that the Bible is actually okay with homosexuality just based on hearing it presented as fact. I’m guessing many won’t actually be able to back it up other that it being something they’d heard from someone else.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just for clarification, this was an argument I had heard, and I didn’t know if there was a factual response, whether anyone had encountered this before, and whether or not this was just some lie circling the internet. The belief that homsexuality, as we know it today, doesn’t fit the context of the time is not mine, I just needed a way to counter it.
That being said, I think your argument works pretty well. I’d wager a guess that most people supporting homosexuality would believe the idea that the Bible is actually okay with homosexuality just based on hearing it presented as fact. I’m guessing many won’t actually be able to back it up other that it being something they’d heard from someone else.

CC,

Yes I have seen this before. A prior agenda oriented poster brought it to my attention. You can find it here.

hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm

Just a lot of nonsense.

 

[Holly3278]

I have seen this argument before but I really don’t know how to respond to it.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

All of you must realize that the mass media, and the apologists for the “gay” lifestyle are masters of “spin”. They can easily twist the truth and present it as a lie and vice versa.
Few of us common people have such talents with language…It is truely the work of Satan.Thankfully, most mature Americans are aware of it and consider these statements accordingly.
Why do you think that whenever there has been a referendum about gay rights, the gays have lost by a massive majority? And in most cases, they have gone to the law courts to negate the election…the recent gay shenanigans in California are an example of this…

 

[CopticChristian]

All of you must realize that the mass media, and the apologists for the “gay” lifestyle are masters of “spin”. They can easily twist the truth and present it as a lie and vice versa.
Few of us common people have such talents with language…It is truely the work of Satan.Thankfully, most mature Americans are aware of it and consider these statements accordingly.
Why do you think that whenever there has been a referendum about gay rights, the gays have lost by a massive majority? And in most cases, they have gone to the law courts to negate the election…the recent gay shenanigans in California are an example of this…

George,

And it appeals to those that profess “The Bible alone”. In other words if Christianity is just me, Jesus and the Bible…there is no authority that can disagree…since each and every “me” is the Pope/Magesterium and led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RiverTam51]

See below. The meaning is very clear.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Rom 1:27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

I have been told by a biblical scholar and faithful Catholic that the direct translation of the text of the Leviticus passages is different from the ones we find in modern bibles: rather than “as if with a woman,” the literal translation is “in the bed of the wife.” If we use this literal translation instead, then we find that Leviticus forbids adultury between men just as it forbids heterosexual adultury. Whether this was the intent of the author(s), or whether “in the bed of the wife” was a euphemism at the time for “sexually,” I have no idea.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have been told by a biblical scholar and faithful Catholic that the direct translation of the text of the Leviticus passages is different from the ones we find in modern bibles: rather than “as if with a woman,” the literal translation is “in the bed of the wife.” If we use this literal translation instead, then we find that Leviticus forbids adultury between men just as it forbids heterosexual adultury. Whether this was the intent of the author(s), or whether “in the bed of the wife” was a euphemism at the time for “sexually,” I have no idea.

River,

Here is the Septuagint version.

ecmarsh.com/lxx/Leviticus/index.htm

0 And thou shalt not lie with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her. 21 And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I am the Lord. 22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any quadruped for copulation, to be polluted with it:

10 Whatever man shall commit adultery with the wife of a man, or whoever shall commit adultery with the wife of his neighbour, let them die the death, the adulterer and the adulteress. 11 And if any one should lie with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness: let them both die the death, they are guilty. 12 And if any one should lie with his daughter-in-law, let them both be put to death; for they have wrought impiety, they are guilty. 13 And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty. 14 Whosoever shall take a woman and her mother, it is iniquity: they shall burn him and them with fire; so there shall not be iniquity among you. 15 And whosoever shall lie with a beast, let him die the death; and ye shall kill the beast.

Here is the Hebrew verwsions

nasb.scripturetext.com/leviticus/20-1.htm

Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. 20‘You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. 21‘You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. 22‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.

If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14‘If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. 15‘If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal

.

I am not a biblical scholar but I am a faithful Catholic. Read it for yourself.