/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14635697]

>While Jacob Milgrom’s work may offer some doubt about our current interpretations, K. Renato Lings’ understanding of Leviticus 18:22 gives us a better idea about the meaning of the original Hebrew.
>First, Lings notes that the word used for “man” is not the typical noun used for “man.” Instead, a word which translates to male occurs here. This noun for “male” includes both young and adult males. Therefore, Lings translates the text of Lev. 18:22 as “And with a male you shall not lie.”
>However, difficulties with translation start as one turns to the next phrase, “As with a woman” (NRSV). Lings contends that translators have taken liberties here by including the word “as”. Many translations also include particles “with” or “like.” According to Ling, these words are not part of the original Hebrew text. Thus, he translates the verse so far as “And with a male you shall lie down the lyings of a woman.”
>According to Ling the reference in Genesis 49:4 depicts “lyings” as incest.
>Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written ... Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest. Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships.
>Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: “Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”
Well /lit/? Is God okay with homosexuality after all? What do our resident Hebrew scholars think of this interpretation?
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/

[Anonymous No.14635710]

The church is obviously already pro-pederasty.

[Anonymous No.14635742]

>>14635697
Typical hack-job scholarship by someone who already had their mind up and uses the kind of argument that almost no one has the knowledge to refute. Even if the original is unclear and the translation is doubtful, that doesn't justify re-translating the entire passage in a pro-LGBT manner. Even if the original is unclear, that doesn't mean that the clarification by traditional exegetes is wrong. I've heard almost exactly the same argument as Ling is putting forward, except that the chapter of Leviticus in question deals with "idolatrous temple prostitution" instead of incest. What if the Bible just means what it says? Pro-LGBT scholars are very happy to accept the plain meaning of Paul's advice that "for those that are burning with passion it is better that they marry than to fall into hell".

[Anonymous No.14635761]

>>14635697
These absurd debates are precisely why the Catholic church insists on tradition, which has been remarked upon, time and time again. While various theologians have argued for new pastoral approaches to speaking about homosexuality and reaching out to homosexual people in order to bring them back to God, it is a firm and unchangeable position that sodomy itself is an abomination before God. St. Paul even makes this pretty clear in Romans, when he speaks of the errors and perversions of the Greeks. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to propose that God intervened in human affairs to divinely inspire a prophet, but that God would not have either the wherewithal or power to ensure that the text is received according to his intention. If ever Man errs, it can only be in such a way as to demonstrate even more strongly the glory of God. While the pharisees had an incorrect understanding of scripture, it was only tolerable to such and extent that the teachings of Jesus were made even more clear. So, we return again to the Apostles--if anyone ever comes to give an interpretation later that does not correspond to what has already been given--let them be anathema!

[Anonymous No.14635763]

>>14635697
>Well /lit/? Is God okay with homosexuality after all? What do our resident Hebrew scholars think of this interpretation?

I don't care what a bunch of jews said in the desert. They also forbade eating crabs and rabbits. But let's check the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 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,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Effeminate means fags. And this is the protestant version, in my catholic Reina Valera says that those who sleep with men will go to hell.

[Anonymous No.14635799]

>>14635763
>Effeminate means fags
That's a bit of a leap.

[Anonymous No.14635823]

>>14635799
wow so you can be a fag but not an effeminate. hillarious.


Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians uses malakos in the plural to refer to persons. This is commonly translated as "effeminate", as in the King James Version.[35] Another common translation is "male prostitutes". Other versions have: "passive homosexual partners", "men who are prostitutes", "effeminate call boys", "men who let other men use them for sex", "those who make women of themselves"

[Anonymous No.14635851]

>>14635697
Just mental gymnastics, they already know what position they want to arrive at and torture the scriptures to do so.