Changes

*17. bringing unbelievers into the holy sanctuary of God, and forsaking the  holy charge (Ezek. 44:78)

*17. bringing unbelievers into the holy sanctuary of God, and forsaking the  holy charge (Ezek. 44:78)

   

   

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek LXX ([[Septuagint]]), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of "bdelygma" in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places, indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that  a Greek word, ''anomia'', would be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref> In support of the traditional position, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency of this argument in the light of more extensive research<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>  

Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek LXX ([[Septuagint]]), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of "bdelygma" in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places, indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that  a Greek word, ''anomia'', would be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref> In support of the traditional position, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency of this argument in the light of more extensive research<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>  

The LXX uses three words in Lv. 18 for abomination/abominations: βδέλυγμα (Lv. 18:22), βδελύγματα (Lv. 18:27) and βδελυγμάτων (Lv. 18:26; 18:29), with the latter references collectively condemning as abomination all the forbidden practices of Lv. 18, and it is certain that laws against illicit sex partners, of which they primarily consist, or against child sacrifice, were in no way seen as part of ceremonial law under the New Testament.  

The LXX uses three words in Lv. 18 for abomination/abominations: βδέλυγμα (Lv. 18:22), βδελύγματα (Lv. 18:27) and βδελυγμάτων (Lv. 18:26; 18:29), with the latter references collectively condemning as abomination all the forbidden practices of Lv. 18, and it is certain that laws against illicit sex partners, of which they primarily consist, or against child sacrifice, were in no way seen as part of ceremonial law under the New Testament.  

As regards, anomia, 24 Hebrew words are variously rendered by this, and while anomia is a word that describes violations of law, it is most always used in a general sense, often like the Hebrew word ‛âvôn, and is rarely used to specify a particular sin, which in contrast is often the case with tōʻēḇā in the Torah. Yet anomia is used in many verses where tōʻēḇā later occurs in the Hebrew. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36; Zec. 3:4)  As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:1, it is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class, while in passages such as Lv. 22:16; 26:43; and Jer. 16:18, it refers to things which Boswell classifies as mere ceremonial purity.  

As regards anomia, 24 Hebrew words are variously rendered by this, and while anomia is a word that describes violations of law, it is most always used in a general sense, often like the Hebrew word ‛âvôn, and is rarely used to specify a particular sin, which in contrast is often the case with tōʻēḇā in the Torah. Yet anomia is used in many verses where tōʻēḇā later occurs in the Hebrew. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36; Zec. 3:4)  As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:1, it is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class, while in passages such as Lv. 22:16; 26:43; and Jer. 16:18, it refers to things which Boswell classifies as mere ceremonial purity.  

As with previous attempts, fuller examination reveals that demanding a more specific word in place of another word which evidence shows can denote the same, and to which the context and or structure testifies, is unwarranted in Scripture. Insomuch as these grammatical have any weight, the traditional position evidences the Hebrew tōʻēḇā as best indicating the moral classification of Lv. 18 and v. 22 in particular, while the LXX does not relegate it to being a mere ceremonial law, which categorization is best determined by the type of prohibition rather than the word used to describe its loathsome nature. In regard to this, Boswell classifies idolatry, such as making idols to worship, or offering one's child as a literal sacrifice to a false god, (Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3) as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather then being practices which are universally wrong today. (1Cor. 10:20,21) In contrast, traditional exegesis works to substantiate that homosex is not simply a corruption of a practice such as eating, which is contextually sanctioned, as the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As historical scholarship sees right worship being established by having the God of the Bible as its object, so it sees sanctified sexual relations as also established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosex is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of ones own liking, formal or informal. (Rm. 1)

As with previous attempts, fuller examination reveals that demanding a more specific word in place of another word which evidence shows can denote the same, and to which the context and or structure testifies, is unwarranted in Scripture. Insomuch as these grammatical have any weight, the traditional position evidences that the use of the Hebrew tōʻēḇā best indicates a moral classification for Lv. 18 and v. 22 in particular, and that the LXX does not relegate it to being a mere ceremonial law, which categorization is best determined by the type of prohibition rather than the word used to describe its loathsome nature. In regard to this, Boswell classifies idolatry, such as making idols to worship, or offering one's child as a literal sacrifice to a false god, (Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3) as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather then being practices which are universally wrong today. (1Cor. 10:20,21) In contrast, traditional exegesis substantiates that homosex is not simply a corruption of a practice such as eating, which is contextually sanctioned, as the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As right worship is seen by historical scholarship as being established by having the God of the Bible as its object, so likewise sanctified sexual relations is also established by the same manner of exegesis as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosex is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of ones own liking, formal or informal. (Rm. 1)

====Zakhar====

====Zakhar====