female pastors and homosexuals

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Deleted member 17362, Apr 4, 2005.

  1. alright, how come it's okay for a woman to lead a church (even though the bible says it's not) but it's not okay for people to be homosexual (as the bible says it's not) should the womans lib movement really affect a religion? and if there is a viable reason for the one (I think there is) Shouldn't there be for the other also (Again I think there is) There are food laws set forth in the old testament that for the most part christians ignore (rennin, pork, calf boiled in it's mothers milk etc.) if we're going to take the old testament shouldn't we take it in whole and not just the parts that serve our personal agendas, or should we instead just take the parts that are made relevant by later scripture, if anyone has LEGITIMATE LOGIC For this I would appreciate a reply
     
  2. Alsharad

    Alsharad Member

    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure thing. There are three types of laws in the Old Testament. Moral laws, cultural laws, and ceremonial laws. As Christians, we believe that all ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. As such, they no longer apply. The dietary laws were, you guessed it, ceremonial (as they led to uncleanness... a ceremonial issue).

    Then there were cultural rules. A good example of this would be the one about putting a railing on your roof. Why was this important? Because in ancient Israel, for work, relaxation, and ejoyment, people would go out on their roofs. The law was there to keep the people safe. However, there is always a moral principle which undergirds the cultural laws. In the railing law, the issues are safety, protection, and recklessness. There are other cultural rules about beard length, cutting hair, etc. But, if you look closely, these have underriding moral principle that are consistent throughout scripture. "Do not blur the gender lines", "Respect your elders," "don't be reckless," "do not give the appearance of impropriety," etc. These laws are found in the Old and New Testament. When you understand the culture, you can see draw out the moral principle behind it.

    Finally, you have moral laws. These are the "thou shalt"s. These are universal moral laws which apply to everyone everywhere. If you look at Leviticus, the homosexuality law is smack in the middle of a host of moral laws. Same thing in the New Testament. It is a moral law that applies equally to everyone. Homosexuality is an offense to God.

    As to women teaching, there are a number of women who were teachers in New Testament times. However, again, the issue is the appearance of impropriety. In that culture, women were not looked upon as equals. As such, there is a strong cultural flavor in the New Testamen that has women to not speak out in church. Does this apply today? Yes and no. Should women be allowed to teach? Absolutely. That was done even in the first century. Should women be allowed to lead congregations? I cannot honestly say that I know whether they should or not. What I can say, however, is that the issue does need to be looked at from a cultural perspective. What is the underpinning principle that led the NT writers to abstain from women being pastors? However, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. A practicing homosexual has about as much authority to preach as a practicing pronographer, pathological liar, malicious gossip, etc. It isn't an issue of the sin, it is an issue of admitted sin and refusal to repent. This amounts to hipocracy (sp?), which God clearly does not tolerate.
     
  3. but aren't those just's man's classification to make us feel better?
     
  4. Alsharad

    Alsharad Member

    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well... they are classifications. But they are classifications of real divisions that occur in scripture. It is more of a recognition of differences than it is forcing divisions that are not really there. It is important to recognize that the Bible has a cultural context. That doesn't mean that the moral principles do not apply to us (moral principles are, by nature, universal). However, there are cultural rules that simply do not apply now. Understanding ancient cultures is the key to recognizing where these middle-ground questions fall.
     
  5. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Interesting point - esp when you consider that the Queen of england is officially head of the Church of England - an organization that until relatively recent times went along with tradition and barred women from becoming priests. Now that's changed, and it's probably a good thing in many ways, but it has also been divisive. And the issue of gay clergy threatens to split apart the Anglican communion.
    Even when a new pope is elected, I can't see there being any movement in the Catholic Church towards ordaining either women or gay people.
     
  6. Alsharad

    Alsharad Member

    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should be pointed out that one has no control over gender. It is genetic at a fundamentally basic level. Disqualifying someone simply based on factors outside their control over which they can assert no control seems inequitable (and perhaps it is). It is possible, however, that there is a very good reason that women have been historically barred from the cloth. I am no expert in the area, though, so I am not ready to come in strongly on one side or the other (actually, I am, but I have nothing on which to firmly base my opinion, so I will keep it to myself).

    Homosexuality, however, is by-and-large a *choice*. There is little to no evidence which indicates a genetic link to homosexual behavior. In fact, those studies which would indicate genetic links (such as studies of sexual preferences in identical twins) has left a general indication that socioeconomic factors weigh in far more heavily than any genetic predisposition. While genes can be partially expressed, expressed features, as a rule, cannot be overcome by an act of will. Downes syndrome, sickle cell, even simple expressions like eye color and blood type are not easily alterable (if they can be altered at all). The beast of human sexuality is far more complex, to be sure, but the ability of a single individual to freely swing between the points of hetero and homosexuality indicates, again, more of a socioeconomic/psycological mindset than "being born that way."

    So, the two aspects of humanity are not really on the same fundamental footing. One is an issue of heredity, the other is an issue of choice (and that choice is pretty clearly condemned throughout scripture).
     
  7. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    I agree in effect with this, although I would express it differently. The way I see it, homosexuality is definitely a 'constructed' form. It may be a kind of choice, but not necessarily a conscious one.
    If there are all-lesbian/gay congregations, they should have their own church. I think that could be the only solution, because I can't see gay clergy as ever being fully acceptable. I am not a church goer, but if I were to begin going, I could not be comfortable with a gay priest. I don't think a woman would be a problem - I was educated partly in my early years by nuns, and they were like authoritative 'religious' figures to me as a child, so really in a way the blueprint for acceptance of women is there in my own psyche. Although I can't imagine a woman celebrating Catholic mass!
    But back when the C of E first sanctioned women's ordination, my grandmother in law, a life-long anglican was very upset, as were many of her older generation. But now it's pretty much accepted in the C of E.
    I do think women have a very great role to play in spiritual life.
     
  8. gnrm23

    gnrm23 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. HuckFinn

    HuckFinn Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would say that there is a clear link between radical feminism and efforts to normalize homosexuality: both movements are rooted in the embrace of androgeny, or the rejection of any innate male-female differences.

    The Bible teaches that men and women are ontologically equal but relationally complementary beings. This is foundational to biblical teaching on both homosexuality and male headship. See http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/rbmw.pdf.
     
  10. Lagidae

    Lagidae Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible wasn't written in English or any other modern language. It was written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Not all experts in ancient languages agree with Biblical translations of a several hundred years ago such as the King James version and others. Incorrect translations result in incorrect interpretations. The following is an example of an incorrect translation resulting in an incorrect interpretation of Biblical scripture. This mistranslation is often mistakenly or purposefully used to allege Divine disapproval and condemnation of homosexuality in order to claim Biblical authority in denying the homosexual community its human rights.


    The King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17-18 reads:

    "...There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel..."

    HOWEVER, the original Hebrew reads: `

    "...i, lo'-thihyeh
    qedhêshâh mibbenoth yisrâ'êl velo'-yihyeh qâdhêshm ibbenêy yisrâ'êl..."

    Take notice of the words "qedhêshâh" & "qâdhêshm" in the above Hebrew passage. "Qedhêshâh" is the femenine noun in Hebrew for temple prostitute &"qâdhêshm" is the masculine noun in Hebrew for temple prostitute.

    Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary (http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB69.htm) defines
    "qadesh" as "...qadesh kaw-dashe' - from 'qadash' (6942); a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:-- sodomite, unclean...


    Therefore, why did the translators of the original Hebrew mistranslate the male noun "qâdhêshm" as Sodomite instead of male whore when they translated the female noun"qedhêshâh" as whore?

    Homophobic discrimination is the answer.
    Take note that the Hebrew word for Sodom is S’dom according to http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebre...ry/017145.html: "...Sodom (Hebrew: > S'dom)..."


    There are no combinations of letters spelling S’dom or variation thereof such as Sodomite in the original Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 23: 17-18, therefore, Sodomite is a purposeful mistranslation.

    Therefore, the correct translation should read:

    "There shall be no female temple prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor a male temple prostitute of the sons of Israel..."

    The point of all this being, as one who all his life has been speaking, reading & writing in ancient Hebrew, original language of the Bible, Rabbi Gershon Caudill (married heterosexual) states ( http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html ):

    "...Over the past decade, I have been involved in a study of the so-called anti-homosexual texts of Leviticus in the original Hebrew versions extant, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and with the help of a Catholic Priest and a Protestant Biblical Languages student at Emory University, I have studied translations of the Greek and Latin texts.

    This study has involved reviewing Talmudic texts and other materials of a collateral nature to the subject matter being studied; history, anthropology, archaeology, philology, and etymology, to name but a few.

    As a result of my research, I am convinced of two things.

    1. THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!

    2. The texts of Leviticus (and Deuteronomy) were utilized by the teachers and Rabbis of the Jewish religious tradition to condemn homosexuality only at a MUCH later date, about 1500 years later. This change of direction happened in the 4th to 6th centuries under THREAT from the dominant and controlling Christian governmental and ecclesiastical authorities. The theologians of the Church needed to have the perceived Jewish interpretation of the texts to be in accordance with their own commentaries and teachings on homosexuality and what they believed (falsely) to be sexual perversion..."

    An excellent website by a Christian clergyman who knows ancient Hebrew and Greek and whose purpose is to educate regarding the Bible and homosexuality is http://www.truluck.com .

    Enjoy.

    In Bruce Bagemihl’s 572-page book, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality & Natural Diversity," nominated in 1999 for a Pulitzer Prize, contains 200 years of scientific observations of animal behavior in hundreds of species both in the wild & in captivity of homosexuality in animals from insects to reptiles, to birds to mammals, including the most intelligent species such as primates & dolphins.

    There are many documented scientific observations in Bagemihl's book of animals engaging in homosexual acts in the wild even in the presence of abundant sexual partners of the opposite sex, therefore, homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation in the animal kingdom which is not the result of cultural conditions such as sexual identification due to parental role models or lack thereof. If homosexuality in animals is not cultural, then, the only other option is that it is genetic. Regardless, of all the spiritual trappings that some like to attribute to the human species which, I, too believe, and that these elevate humankind above the rest of mortal creation, humans are also members of the animal kingdom, mammals to be specific, and as such are subject to the same laws of genetics.

    In closing, I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior but I believe the Bible has been mistranslated and, consequently, misinterpreted, especially, as what regards the alleged sinfulness of homosexuality and its alleged condemnation by God.

    The Church will have a lot to explain to the homosexual communiity and, indeed, before the very throne of God for all the mental, spiritual and physical pain it has inflicted on the homosexual community throughout the centuries by way of hunting down, trying, torturing and executing countless members of the homosexual community predicated on the ignorant prejudices of the ancient Hebrews' homophobia which caused them, as many mistakenly allege through mistranslations and misinterpretation of sacred scripture, to criminalize and punish homosexuality in their legal codes.The Last Judgment will, surely, be a surprise to many a homophobe.

    Remember, it was the letter-of-the-law-hair-splitting Pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites and whom he drove out of the temple with a whip. There are many modern day Pharisees that claim to know every jot and tiddle of Sacred Scripture, who pride themselves in thinking they have been especially chosen by Divine Favor over others. They fool themselves and others.

    There was a time the Church the insisted the earth was flat predicated on Biblical passages. We now know for certain otherwise.

    The church threatened Galileo with torture and execution for stating that the earth and planets revolved around the sun because it was contrary to Biblical passages indicating the earth was the center of creation and all things revolved around it. We now know for certain otherwise.

    Knowing he was right, Galileo, fearing for life and limb, while rising from his kneeling position after recanting, he muttered to himself the famous words:"Eppur se muove" And yet it moves. And yet it (the earth around the sun) moves.

    Eppur se muove, indeed.

    As we all know, a lot of things in the Bible are not stated in a straight foreword manner and one has to read between the lines, decipher parables, translate word play and florid prose in order to, hopefully, understand. Understanding Biblical language is difficult enough for the expert linguist and career Bible scholar let alone us laymen with no first hand knowledge of ancient Biblical languages and have to rely on the translations of others.


    I would, however, like to point out that 1 Romans is often used to condemn homosexuality. Those that quote Paul in 1 Romans start with verse 24 which begins with the word "Therefore." In the preceding Verse 23, over which many like to pole vault, the "Therefore" of verse 24 is described in detail resulting in "Therefore" being specifically identified as being idolatry which is the SIN which God punishes with homosexuality.

    Paul is saying that IDOLATRY is the SIN punished with HOMOSEXUALITY. Paul is NOT saying homosexuality is a SIN.

    "...22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..."

    Not ALL the apostles were in divinely inspired agreement ALL of the time in their opinions as the extreme argument between Paul and Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 is clear evidence. Either Paul was correct and Peter was wrong or Peter was correct and Paul was wrong or both were wrong. However, both could not have been correct in the agrument.

    Therefore, considering Paul’s opinions regarding basic human rights such as slavery, his directive that women not speak or teach in the congregations and women’s subordinate social position, I am not favorable to accepting his opinion on homosexuality being the punishment for the sin of idolatry as being Divinely inspired.

    Quoting from : "...In the final analysis it is the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery (& homophobia). Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it..."

    As we all know, a lot of things in the Bible are not stated in a straight foreword manner and one has to read between the lines, decipher parables, translate word play and florid prose in order to, hopefully, understand. Understanding Biblical language is difficult enough for the expert linguist and career Bible scholar let alone us laymen with no first hand knowledge of ancient Biblical languages and have to rely on the translations of others.

    I would, however, like to point out that 1 Romans is often used to condemn homosexuality. Those that quote Paul in 1 Romans pole start with verse 24 which begins with the word "Therefore." In the preceding Verse 23, the "Therefore" of verse 24 is described in detail resulting in "Therefore" being specifically identified as being idolatry which is the SIN which God punishes with homosexuality.

    Paul is saying that IDOLATRY is the SIN punished with HOMOSEXUALITY. Paul is NOT saying homosexuality is a SIN.

    "...22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..."

    Paul is saying that for committing the SIN of IDOLATRY, God punished HETEROSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN by changing them into HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS.

    READ IT AGAIN: "...26 For this cause (IDOLATRY) God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman (heterosexuality), burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (homosexuality)..."

    Got it? Get it.

    Not ALL the apostles were in divinely inspired agreement ALL of the time in their opinions as the extreme argument between Paul and Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 is clear evidence, therefore, considering Paul’s opinions regarding basic human rights such as slavery, his directive that women not speak or teach in the congregations and women’s subordinate social position, I am not favorable to accepting his opinion on homosexuality being the punishment for the sin of idolatry as being Divinely inspired.

    Quoting from http://home.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html : "...In the final analysis it is the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery (& homophobia). Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it..."

    The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often claimed to be PROOF POSITIVE of God’s condemnatin of homosexuality. This is NOT TRUE.

    The Bible ITSELF gives its own reasons for the destruction of the two cities and, surprise, homosexuality isn't one of them as can be read in Ezequiel 16: 49-50:

    "...49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it..."

    In the above list, there is no mention whatsoever of homosexuality not even of temple prostitutes. The word "abomination" is mentioned, however, it didn’t even merit a precise definition nor does it figure at the beginning of the list where one would expect to be find the MAIN reason for the destruction but rather obscurely at the end.

    Surely, if homosexuality was THE reason for the destruction, it would have been stated in no uncertain terms.

    Let me, also, point out that if the entire male population of Sodom was homosexual, how did the city maintain its population growth? And, if they were all homosexuals, what was the use in Lot offering his two virgin daughters in lieu of his angelic visitors since homosexuals wouldn’t have had any sexual interest in females? If any father today were to try to defend visitors from being raped by offering his daughters in their stead, he would have been accused of endangering the welfare of minors, he would lose custody of his children and be thrown in jail.

    Also, BEFORE the alleged homosexual rape of Lot's two guests, the Bible states that God had ALREADY decided to destroy the two cities as tetified by the two angels when they visited Abraham on their way to Sodom.

    Yes, kiddies, often, it's the fine details that bring out the truth.

    The Bible continues with the saga with Lot getting drunk in a cave, having incestuous sexual acts with his two daughters and impregnating, thereby, becoming the father of not just one but two nations - the Ebonites and the Moabites.

    Some will say he was so drunk he didn't know what he was doing. If he was so drunk he couldn't recognize his own daughters, it would be hard, knowing how the excess consumption of liquor affects a man's ability to have an erection, for Lot to have been able to impregnate them.

    Such hypocrisy in the "universal" application of moral precepts.
     
  11. HuckFinn

    HuckFinn Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1
  12. Lagidae

    Lagidae Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    As we all know, a lot of things in the Bible are not stated in a straight foreword manner and one has to read between the lines, decipher parables, translate word play and florid prose in order to, hopefully, understand. Understanding Biblical language is difficult enough for the expert linguist and career Bible scholar let alone us laymen with no first hand knowledge of ancient Biblical languages and have to rely on the translations of others.


    I would, however, like to point out that those who contend that the Bible condemns homosexuality often quote Paul’s 1 Romans starting with verse 24 which begins with the word "Therefore." In the preceding Verse 23, over which many tend to pole vault, the "Therefore" of verse 24 is described in detail resulting in "Therefore" being specifically identified as being IDOLATRY which is the SIN which God punishes with homosexuality.

    Paul is saying that IDOLATRY is the SIN punished with HOMOSEXUALITY. Paul is NOT saying HOMOSEXUALITY is a SIN.

    "...22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things (IDOLATRY). 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator (IDOLATRY), who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..."

    Paul is saying that for committing the SIN of IDOLATRY, God changed HETEROSEXUAL men and women into HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS.

    READ IT AGAIN: 26 For this cause (IDOLATRY) God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman (HETEROSEXUALITY), burned in their lust one toward another; men with men. (HOMOSEXUALITY).."


    Got it? Get it.

    Not ALL the apostles were in divinely inspired agreement ALL of the time in their opinions as the extreme argument between Paul and Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 is clear evidence, therefore, considering Paul’s opinions regarding basic human rights such as slavery, his directive that women not speak or teach in the congregations and women’s subordinate social position, I am not favorable to accepting his opinion on homosexuality being the punishment for the sin of idolatry as being Divinely inspired.

    Quoting from http://home.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html : "...In the final analysis it is the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery (& homophobia). Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it..."

    The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often claimed to be PROOF POSITIVE of God’s condemnatin of homosexuality. This is FALSE.

    The Bible ITSELF gives its own reasons for the destruction of the two cities and, surprise, homosexuality isn't one of them as can be read in Ezequiel
    16: 49-50:


    "...49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it..."

    In the above list, there is no mention whatsoever of homosexuality not even of temple prostitutes. The word "abomination" is mentioned, however, it didn’t even merit a precise definition nor does it figure at the beginning of the list where one would expect to be find the MAIN reason for the destruction but rather obscurely at the end.

    Surely, if homosexuality was THE reason for the destruction, it would have been stated in no uncertain terms.

    Let me, also, point out that if the entire male population of Sodom was homosexual, how did the city maintain its population growth? And, if they were all homosexuals, what was the use in Lot offering his two virgin daughters in lieu of his angelic visitors since homosexuals wouldn’t have had any sexual interest in females? If any father today were to try to defend visitors from being raped by offering his daughters in their stead, he would be accused of endangering the welfare of minors, he would lose custody of his children and be thrown in jail.

    I will also point out that God had ALREADY decided to destroy the two cities before the alleged attempted homosexual rape of Lot's two guests as is witnessed by the two angels who visited and told Abraham about the cities' impending doom on their way to Sodom.

    Careful reading of the facts yields insights to the truth.

    The Bible continues with the saga with Lot getting drunk in a cave, having incestuous sexual acts with his two daughters and impregnating, therebey, becoming the father of not just one but two nations - the Ebonites and the Moabites.

    I thought incest was a big NO NO in Biblical times.

    Some will say he was so drunk he didn't know what he was doing. If he was so drunk he couldn't recognize his own daughters, it would be hard, knowing how the excess consumption of liquor affects a man's ability to have an erection, for Lot to have been able to impregnate them.

    So much for the alleged "universal" application of moral precepts.

    The Bible wasn't written in English or any other modern language. It was written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Not all experts in ancient languages agree with Biblical translations of a several hundred years ago such as the King James version and others. Incorrect translations result in incorrect interpretations. The following is an example of an incorrect translation resulting in an incorrect interpretation of Biblical scripture. This mistranslation is often mistakenly or purposefully used to allege Divine disapproval and condemnation of homosexuality in order to claim Biblical authority in denying the homosexual community its human rights.

    The King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17-18 reads:

    "...There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel..."

    HOWEVER, the original Hebrew reads:


    "...i, lo'-thihyeh
    qedhêshâh mibbenoth yisrâ'êl velo'-yihyeh qâdhêshm ibbenêy yisrâ'êl..."


    Take notice of the words "qedhêshâh" & "qâdhêshm" in the above Hebrew passage. "Qedhêshâh" is the femenine noun in Hebrew for temple prostitute &"qâdhêshm" is the masculine noun in Hebrew for temple prostitute.

    Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary (http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB69.htm) defines
    "qadesh" as "...qadesh kaw-dashe' - from 'qadash' (6942); a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:-- sodomite, unclean...


    Therefore, why did the translators of the original Hebrew mistranslate the male noun "qâdhêshm" as Sodomite instead of male whore when they translated the female noun"qedhêshâh" as whore?

    Homophobic discrimination is the answer.

    Take note that the Hebrew word for Sodom is S’dom according to
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebre...ry/017145.html
    : "...Sodom (Hebrew: > S'dom)..." There are no combinations of letters spelling S’dom or variation thereof such as Sodomite in the original Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 23: 17-18, therefore, Sodomite is a purposeful mistranslation.


    Therefore, the correct translation should read:

    "There shall be no female temple prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor a male temple prostitute of the sons of Israel..."

    The point of all this being, as one who all his life has been speaking, reading & writing in ancient Hebrew, original language of the Bible, Rabbi Gershon Caudill (married heterosexual):
    states ( http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html ):


    "...Over the past decade, I have been involved in a study of the so-called anti-homosexual texts of Leviticus in the original Hebrew versions extant, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and with the help of a Catholic Priest and a Protestant Biblical Languages student at Emory University, I have studied translations of the Greek and Latin texts.

    This study has involved reviewing Talmudic texts and other materials of a collateral nature to the subject matter being studied; history, anthropology, archaeology, philology, and etymology, to name but a few.

    As a result of my research, I am convinced of two things.

    1. THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!



    2. The texts of Leviticus (and Deuteronomy) were utilized by the teachers and Rabbis of the Jewish religious tradition to condemn homosexuality only at a MUCH later date, about 1500 years later. This change of direction happened in the 4th to 6th centuries under THREAT from the dominant and controlling Christian governmental and ecclesiastical authorities. The theologians of the Church needed to have the perceived Jewish interpretation of the texts to be in accordance with their own commentaries and teachings on homosexuality and what they believed (falsely) to be sexual perversion..."

    An excellent website by a Christian clergyman who knows ancient Hebrew and Greek and whose purpose is to educate regarding the Bible and homosexuality is http://www.truluck.com .

    Enjoy.

    As to homosexuality being against nature, the following:

    In Bruce Bagemihl’s 572-page book, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality & Natural Diversity," nominated in 1999 for a Pulitzer Prize, contains 200 years of scientific observations of animal behavior in hundreds of species both in the wild & in captivity of homosexuality in animals from insects to reptiles, to birds to mammals, including the most intelligent species such as primates & dolphins.

    There are many documented scientific observations in Bagemihl's book of animals engaging in homosexual acts in the wild even in the presence of abundant sexual partners of the opposite sex, therefore, homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation in the animal kingdom which is not the result of cultural conditions such as sexual identification due to parental role models or lack thereof. If homosexuality in animals is not cultural, then, the only other option is that it is genetic. Regardless, of all the spiritual trappings that some like to attribute to the human species which, I, too believe, and that these elevate humankind above the rest of mortal creation, humans are also members of the animal kingdom, mammals to be specific, and as such are subject to the same laws of genetics.

    I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior but I believe the Bible has been mistranslated and, consequently, misinterpreted, especially, as what regards the alleged sinfulness of homosexuality and its alleged condemnation by God.

    The Church will have a lot to explain to the homosexual community and, indeed, before the very throne of God for all the mental, spiritual and physical pain it has inflicted on the homosexual community throughout the centuries by way of hunting down, trying, torturing and executing countless members of the homosexual community predicated on the ignorant prejudices of the ancient Hebrews' homophobia which caused them, as many mistakenly allege through mistranslations and misinterpretation of sacred scripture, to criminalize and punish homosexuality in their legal codes.

    The Last Judgment will, surely, be a surprise to many a homophobe.
    Remember, it was the letter-of-the-law-hair-splitting Pharisees whom Jesus called hypocrites and whom he drove out of the temple with a whip. There are many modern day Pharisees that claim to know every jot and tittle of Sacred Scripture, who pride themselves in thinking they have been especially chosen by Divine Favor over others. They fool themselves and others.

    There was a time the Church the insisted the earth was flat predicated on Biblical passages. We now know for certain otherwise.

    The church threatened Galileo with torture and execution for stating that the earth and planets revolved around the sun because it was contrary to Biblical passages indicating the earth was the center of creation and all things revolved around it. We now know for certain otherwise.

    Knowing he was right, Galileo, fearing for life and limb, while rising from his kneeling position after recanting, he muttered to himself the famous words:

    "Eppur se muove" And yet it moves. And yet it (the earth around the sun) moves.

    "Eppur se muove, indeed.
     
  13. HuckFinn

    HuckFinn Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1
    Maybe we can have a copy, paste, and regurgitate contest . . .
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice