Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 368: Line 368:     
====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh====  
 
====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh====  
 +
As Lv. 18:22 declares homosexual relations between men to be an "abomination", Boswell and most other polemicists promoting such contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translated ''abomination'', seldom  refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics.  Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure", and was wrong merely "because it offended sensitivities".<ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframehttp://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html Quoted in ''A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology'']</ref>
   −
Boswell and most other polemicists promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translated ''abomination'' as in Lv. 18:22, seldom  refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics.  Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his revisionist position.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to
+
Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosex (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (akin to “team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref><ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref> though even pro-homosexual author Robin A. Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>
−
Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref>  
     −
Instead, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref>  like laws against unclean foods, or that of strange haircuts.
+
Instead of tô‛êbah, Boswell asserts that the the Hebrew word ''zimmâh'' would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; were not a mere form of "ethnic contamination,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref>  like laws against unclean foods, or that of strange haircuts.
   −
Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosex (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (“team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref><ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref> though even prohomosex author Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref>
+
However, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text is shown to evidence that it is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to the such things being abominable for Israel (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for  abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. (vs. 27,29) As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16, etc.)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>
−
 
  −
However, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text reveals that it is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for  abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>
      
The word, which, when used, always denotes ceremonial abominations is ''sheqets'' (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then ''shâqats,'' from which it is derived, which itself is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations, (Lev. 11:11,13,43; 20:25) and a "cursed thing in Dt. 7:26, and an abhorred cry in Prv. 22:24.
 
The word, which, when used, always denotes ceremonial abominations is ''sheqets'' (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then ''shâqats,'' from which it is derived, which itself is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations, (Lev. 11:11,13,43; 20:25) and a "cursed thing in Dt. 7:26, and an abhorred cry in Prv. 22:24.
−
  −
As for zimmâh, when used sexually, it is another word, used less frequently, to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā.` (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest=zimmâh ) An examination of the use of these words reveals that the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such.
      
Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā
 
Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā
Line 390: Line 386:  
*5. remarrying divorced women (Dt. 24:2-4)
 
*5. remarrying divorced women (Dt. 24:2-4)
 
*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)
 
*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)
−
*7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:27-30; 20:13)
+
*7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:26,27,29,30; 20:13)
 
*8. temple prostitution (1Kg. 14:24; 21:2,11)
 
*8. temple prostitution (1Kg. 14:24; 21:2,11)
 
*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)
 
*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)
Line 401: Line 397:  
*16. violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezek. 18:10-13)
 
*16. violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezek. 18:10-13)
 
*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)
 +
 +
As regards ''zimmâh'', when used sexually, it is usually used in a general manner to describe the vile nature of universally sinful sexual immorality, such as are also specifically or broadly categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17, 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:9,11; 23:21,27,29,35,44,48,49) yet the use of the latter shows that the list of universal sinful things extends to more than those referred to as being zimmâh. Paradoxically, zimmâh also works to confirm the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom in Gn. 19, due to it's use in the parallel story to describe the offense of the men of Gibeah. (Judges 20:6)
    
====Recourse to the Septuagint====   
 
====Recourse to the Septuagint====   
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414

edits

Navigation menu