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 ''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>  

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 likely 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 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>   

That Hellenistic Jewish translators of the LXX (for whom all the Levitical laws were always to be literally obeyed, if possible) used both bdelygma and derivatives mainly for specific violations of the Holiness Code, while giving it a broader use in wisdom and literature, (Prov. 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8; 15:9,26; 16:12; 20:23; 21:27; 27:20; 29:27); including using for cheating in the market under Moasic law (Dt. 25:13-190 However, traditionalists point out that only part of the holiness code is ceremonial, and that by type Lv. 18:22 belongs 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 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).   

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 always 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).   

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes,

 

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments,

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.

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.

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, and which iniquity is usually of a moral nature, such as illicit sex partners. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36)  As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:5, anomia is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class. Yet in passages such as Lev. 22:16 it refers to things which Boswell and most traditionalists classify as mere ceremonial purity. Likewise, 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 than being practices which are universally and immutably evil and forbidden, which the whole of the Bible testifies to. (1Cor. 10:20,21; Rv. 14:11) Likewise, in contrast to prohomosex proponents, traditional exegesis manifests 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)

 

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 (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====