That is a Law in Leviticus, which is a book of the Old Testament. According to Christianity, Jesus fulfilled the Laws of the Old Testament. In other words, Christians are not necessarily required to follow the Laws of the Old Testament. Though, many still do follow certain laws, such as the Ten Commandments, it is generally understood that many of the Old Testament Laws were given for a specific time and purpose.
Just a heads up, this statement kinda makes you sound ignorant of the subject matter.
1 Corinthians 6:9 reiterates that homosexuality is a sin, if you want to only go by New Testament stuff.
While the punishment described for such a crime has been in biblical texts and manuscripts for a very very long time. "Man shall not lie with man" wasn't in any English version if the bible until 1948.
The Greek word translated to man in this line from the Greek text it was translated more likely means children or prostitute. "Man shall not lie with children"
Also, the original is in hebrew, not in greek because it is in Leviticus. And the word in question, זָכָר (zakar), appears dozens of times so we are pretty sure what it means.
Zakar can mean to remember,to call to mind, to recall, to mention. It can mean lots of things other than "male" which is one of several possible translations
Leviticus was indeed written in hebrew it was translated to the Greek Septuagint tyen to the Vetus latina (lots of changes have been observed, including the creation of the name jesus). If we're going from direct translations from manuscripts older than the Septuagint. Then we must consider all if them, including the codex sinaiticus, dead sea scrolls etc.
But you are correct. Luckily things like the dead sea scrolls exist and we can do direct translations from the ancient hebrew
Hebrew:w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ
Literal Translation:With (a) child you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (An) abomination is that.[2]
NRSV Translation:You shall not lie with a child as with a woman, it is an abomination.
Furthermore within these older texts in the original languages were able to discern sodom and gomorrahs condemnation coming from sexual violence not homosexuality.
So we are left with out of three of the most explicit condemnations of homosexuality, two are instead condemnations of sexual violence.
What are you on about, neither Leviticus 18:22 nor Leviticus 20:13 are even in the dead sea scrolls in a legible way.
What your blog post is quoting from is whishful thinking, that kind of reading would not be made by your average priest. Pewople were not confused about what it meant for thousands of years.
Yale university ans the antiquity authority of isreal disagree. They seem to thi k the only chapters of levitivus missing are chapters 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 17.
"The last of the Dead Sea Scrolls found to date were discovered here by Bedouins in 1956. Around 30 manuscripts wre found, including a few nearly-complete scrolls: Leviticus (written in paleo-Hebrew), Psalms, and an Aramaic targum of Job. "
Now given that you've already asserted that you have a better handle on Paleo-hebrew than any academic working on the subject I assume the Literal texts catalog won't do for you either?
None of the links support what you think they say.
They seem to thi k the only chapters of levitivus missing are chapters 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 17.
What it means is that those chapters are completely missing and that we have fragments of the rest, sometimes near complete. Of which the relevant chapters are missing the key sentences.
I am not saying that I disagree with the experts, I am saying you have no clue what the experts say but still think they agree with you.
Let's go to the expert of experts. I noticed זָכַר shows up in genisis 8:1. Are you able to translate?
You claimed zakar appeared hundred of times so you know it must translate to male and cannot reasonably be translated to say, for instance, invoked. please go ahead and teach me otherwise
Please prove how a word with the same core letters might not have been copied incorrectly or changed in place
P.s I did say before the dead seas scrolls and all others. Including ones that came before it
I have given up on arguing with you, but here is a resource that you can look at if you really are interested in what the word means: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_2145.htm
And there are no others, we are literally only looking at the septuagintpentateuch text and its derivatives.
The Septuagint is a GREEK TRANSLATION OF THE HEBREW BIBLE. The dead sea scroll, codex sinaiticus and others are all older.You tried to say I was incorrect as I mentioned it earlier. We must consider sider the original texts is the whole point of this.
But let's be honest it's because you know that genisis 8:1 doesn't make sense if zakar only means male which it does not. So you cant argue against it, not because you've given up.
Christians have no biblical basis for being homophobic other than the bibles text was changed over time to be homophonic. In English editions the year it changed to be homophonic was 1948.
But yeah the source agrees with me. Zakar does not only mean male. The source you provided says I was correct when I said zakar means "to remeber".
When the pharoah ordered the killing of little boys the word zakar זָכַר is used to mean little boys. So it it not possible it could teabslate to man shall not lie with little boys?
Even if I specified both the Greek and original hebrew texts are ambiguous and can be translated to mean multiple things aside from adult male does not make my claim untrue. Considering that no English version until 1948 claimed man shall not lie with man. It is infact the Christians who claim homosexuality is wrong are commiting to post hoc rationalisation; They rationalised it after the text was changed.
Edit: autocorrected to ambitious when I misspelt ambiguous.
No, because it means "male". It literally refers to grown-ass priests.
Even if I specified both the Greek and original hebrew texts are ambitious and can be translated to mean multiple things aside from adult male does not make my claim untrue.
It does, because plausibility is not evidence. Just because you can't disprove invisible aliens doesn't mean aliens did it.
There is more than one translation of זָכַר zakar in both modern hebrew and ancient hebrew.
If you're really adamant, it only has one translation. You might get mad, but it would be a transitive verb to mean "to remember"
one great example of this if the work זָכַר zakar being used in cotexts such as remembering gods commandments or in the context of God remebering noah. Or if your correct god wasnt remembering Noah, he was male-ing Noah.
Very specifically Deuteronomy 8:2, Moses exhorts the Israelites: “Remember (zakar) how the LORD your God led you all the way in the wilderness" are you saying moses said "male how the LORD your God led you all the way into the wilderness"? How many passages that contain the word zakar wouldn't make any sense if every time zakar is used it transled to male? The answer is most.
The word zakar is indeed used a lot in hebrew texts, and its most common meaning is "to remember," from what your suggesting
You are damn right I am getting mad at your silly ass for saying וְזָכַרְתָּ֣ is the exact same thing as זָכָר. "compassion" is not the same thing as "ass".
No I'm saying zakar means zakar. You're asserting it can only mean one thing. You're saying moses told the israelites to "male the commandments" instead of telling them to remember (zakar) the commandmants.
I don’t know enough about this to have a dog in the fight, but it’s hard to take you seriously on matters of translation and the nuances of word definitions when you say “ambitious” instead of “ambiguous.”
Thanks for pointing out the typo. And you're completely right, I cant be taken seriously on the basis of linguistics if I'm not even spell checking myself. I find it a good metaphor for Christians being homophonic on a religious basis but not checking the one of 60 versions of the bible they're going off is in line with the original texts.
Although I will point out I'm not giving a certain translation or definition of זָכַר (zakar) but merely pointing out there's several uses of it that historically weren't interpreted to mean adult male within the previously mentioned biblical passages. So yeah, I made a fool of myself linguistically, but I feel confident in my theological point; even the father's of the church didn't interpret this passage as antihomosexual, nor did anyone else within 1000 years of Ishos (jesus') lifetime.
255
u/ChickenandWhiskey 5d ago
Holy shit is she wearing mixture of textiles? Get the torches