Changes

====Recourse to the Septuagint====   

====Recourse to the Septuagint====   

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 ''βδέλυγμα'' (''bdelygma'' or ''bdelugma'') in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places,<ref>[http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=abomination&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Jer. 16:18&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=jer&ng=16&ncc=16 studylight.org; abomination]</ref> indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'',<ref>[http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_618-20.htm preceptaustin.org]</ref> 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>  

It appears that Hellenistic Jewish translators of the LXX (for whom the ceremonial laws were imperative commands, to be obeyed when possible) sought to use βδέλυγμα and derivatives for violations of the Holiness Code, while giving it a broader meaning in wisdom literature, (Prov. 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8; 15:9,26; 16:12; 20:23; 21:27; 27:20; 29:27); though it is used for cheating in the market by using rigged weights in Dt. 25:13-19. However, traditionalists point out that only part of the holiness code is ceremonial, and that its type places it within the moral catogory.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl</ref>   

It appears that Hellenistic Jewish translators of the LXX (for whom all the Levitical laws were always to be literally obeyed, if possible) sought to use bdelygma and derivatives for violations of the Holiness Code, while giving it a broader meaning in wisdom literature, (Prov. 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8; 15:9,26; 16:12; 20:23; 21:27; 27:20; 29:27); though it is used for cheating in the market by using rigged weights in Dt. 25:13-19. However, traditionalists point out that only part of the holiness code is ceremonial, and that its type places it within the moral category.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl</ref>   

In contrast to the LXX. the Hebrew uses ''sheqets''' and ''shâqats,'' almost exclusively for ceremonial laws such as regulate diet, while using tōʻēḇā primarily for moral abominations. The LXX does not translate those words consistently, as comparison shows,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Toevah+LXX.html</ref> sometimes translating both tô‛êbah, sheqets or shâqats as βδέλυγμα, and using βδέλυγμά for both dietary violations (Lev. 11:10,13) as well as for morally illicit marriage in Dt. 24:4 (in place of tōʻēḇā).  

In contrast to the LXX, the Hebrew word ''sheqets'', when it occurs in the original language text (the Masoretic), is used exclusively for dietary laws, or (once) for touching that which is unclean. Likewise ''shâqats'' is only used for diet in Leviticus, while tōʻēḇā is primarily used for moral abominations. The LXX does not translate those words consistently, as comparison shows,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Toevah+LXX.html</ref> such as using βδέλυγμά for sheqets in Lev. 11:10,13,23 (dietary), and for tô‛êbah in Dt. 24:4 (morally illicit marriage). 

 

 

Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by “abomination,” or “abominable thing,” referring (except in Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.

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 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)

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 (Jer. 32:35; Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3), as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather then being practices which are universally and immutably evil and forbidden. (1Cor. 10:20,21) In contrast to prohomosex proponents, traditional exegesis substantiates that homosex is not a corruption of a practice such as eating, for whereas the latter is contextually sanctioned, the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As right worship is seen 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 traditional exegesis as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosex is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of one's own liking, formal or informal. (Rm. 1)

====Zakhar====

====Zakhar====