Leviticus 18 22

Port

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
2,067
portland maine
#1
Leviticus 22 states
"‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Written 3 thousand years ago How much damage has this line caused, and might there be another meaning then the obvious?
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,192
Australia
#2
A lot of biblical translations are pretty dodgy. Need to go back to original language. And this causes its own problems because the early versions of the bible are contradictory.
 
Apr 2018
425
India
#3
The entire Leviticus 18 is obnoxious at best by today's standards. It's basically an nCr where n=No of available people, r=potential 'knowers of nakedness'with a NOT joke. It gives an impression that the society was like a troop of Bonobos. But back in those harsh days probably such harsh laws were required to keep order in the society. The land of Israel was pretty much a godforsaken desert totally unfit for a 'cultured' civilization like the Greeks or the Romans, to develop. Hence such awkwardly written laws to keep an unprivileged society in order.

And as Dan Howard said, the King James Bible is confusing and self-contradictory from the very first chapter. Any idea what Leviticus was/is like in older/contemporary other versions??
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,004
here
#4
Leviticus 22 states
"‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Written 3 thousand years ago How much damage has this line caused, and might there be another meaning then the obvious?
Is the the implication that all male on male sexual taboos have their origins in Leviticus? Condemnation of homosexuality (and other sexual behaviors) can and has occurred independent of the Bible.
 
Likes: Haakbus

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,738
Western Eurasia
#6
This translation seems to be accurate and clear.
Leviticus 18:22 You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.

You must not
לֹ֥א (lō)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no

lie
תִשְׁכַּ֖ב (ṯiš·kaḇ)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7901: To lie down

with
וְאֶ֨ת־ (wə·’eṯ-)
Conjunctive waw | Preposition
Strong's Hebrew 854: Nearness, near, with, by, at, among

a man
זָכָ֔ר (zā·ḵār)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 2145: Remembered, a male

as with
מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י (miš·kə·ḇê)
Noun - masculine plural construct
Strong's Hebrew 4904: Place of lying, a couch, act of lying

a woman;
אִשָּׁ֑ה (’iš·šāh)
Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 802: Woman, wife, female

that
הִֽוא׃ (hî)
Pronoun - third person feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 1931: He, self, the same, this, that, as, are

[is] an abomination.
תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh)
Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 8441: Something disgusting, an abhorrence, idolatry, an idol
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,029
Australia
#7
Leviticus 22 states
"‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Written 3 thousand years ago How much damage has this line caused, and might there be another meaning then the obvious?
It is impossible to lie with a male the same way one does with a female ... they just aint built that way .

- Well, thats my argument when I get to the gate ;
 
Apr 2017
676
Lemuria
#8
Leviticus 22 states
"‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Written 3 thousand years ago How much damage has this line caused, and might there be another meaning then the obvious?
Is it wrong though to make such a statement? We know persecution of gays is obviously wrong but is it wrong to declare sexual acts between males as wrong in a primitive social context?
 
Jan 2012
418
South Midlands in Britain
#9
If you read all of Leviticus it is full of one kind of prohibition or other. It is what some would call base law, or a set of rules for a new society. There are many prohibitions there which are largely ignored by the mainstream these days. Just go through them and have the odd chuckle. The question has to be therefore why is 18.22 with its prohibition of homosexual practise so often referred to these days and not the others?

The answer to that has to be that many self-styled godly folk want to use it to reinforce a prejudice against gay people. I would always pitch against this argument the inclusive sentiments expressed by Jesus of Nazareth who sought to bring the rejected and the condemned back into society. I would go further to say that St Paul's many injunctions against homosexual behaviour were framed as being against all sexual behaviour outside marriage. Do modern churches devote such time and energy condemning heterosexual sin? Thought not.

I have also heard it argued that homosexual practise was part of the worship of Baal. How true this is I don't know, but it has been argued that the sentiment in 18.22 was directed at pagans. I am not convinced by this argument and the context of Leviticus does not suggest this to be a valid argument.

The righteous position is not to condemn homosexual behaviour by itself but all sexual misbehaviour outside of the sanctity of marriage. As I have said above no church will get many takers for that one in this day and age. I would argue that sex is a function of the material world, but not a factor within wider spiritual experience. I suppose anyone practising Tantric sex might object to that, but you can't please everyone. Why are we so obsessed about getting naked and doing what comes naturally?
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,029
Australia
#10
Well, what if a woman lies with a woman, as if she laid with (or got laid by) a man ?

Is there a law against that ?

I know Queen Victoria would not make one , as she believed that women do not have the physical anatomy to be able to have sex with each other ... :confused:
 
Similiar History Discussions History Forum Date
Religious History

Similar History Discussions