Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

[Ben Kenobi]

Then let's make this book just a few more pages and call it the Bible.

Not a bad argument, except for the fact that modern translations just go from the original Hebrew and the Greek, to English.

Secondly, any differences can be checked against other translations.

Other languages are more of a concern, but that will depend on the language. All the Russian bibles that I have seen, are not quite up to par with the English versions.

[Nubclear]

My main argument is the whole "Thousands of years" bit.
Things are bound to get a little fudged up both due to time and to human interference

[Dry]

If it is the funny arguments you want, here is a text that once came in my mailbox:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned by Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does this vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/ polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death in a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confindent you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[curtsibling]

On topic:

So, someone writes in some old book that people cannot do a certain thing, and it becomes law?

My counterargument?
"The words of long dead primitive men are outdated garbage."

Religionists should update their dogma handbook.
It should also add some lines deploring the clegymen
who prey on innocence, and about that evil crime I shall not go into detail here.

Just pick up a newsheet and you will see a new holy scanadal every week.

These people have no right to judge anyone!

[The Mad Monk]

Who said that we did?

[curtsibling]

Their bible says they have.

Hence why they hurl the term 'sinner' at all and sundry!

I reject that label utterly from corrupt human churches.

[The Mad Monk]

Their Bible?

My Bible.

Paul has much to say on the subject of judging others in Romans; unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with the matter now, so I will comment in detail later.

[curtsibling]

You are welcome to keep that bible.

I have my own opinions, but I appreciate your perspective on the matter, when you have the time.

At the end of the day, religion is about controlling the unthinking masses.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Zevico
Er...guys, he's Jewish. I assume his classmates are too, as he lives in Israel. So the New Testament is not of any assistance.

Actually I am a Jew living in Washington DC. The rest of my classmates are Christian.

[Jaguar]

These people have no right to judge anyone!

Who said that we did?

Originally posted by curtsibling
Their bible says they have.

Aaaah!!!!!!!!! The Ignorance!!!!! It's blinding!!!

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
OK. I dare ANYONE to take a, say, 25 paged book (pretty small), translate it to Japanese, Chinese, Russian, back to English, and repeat this over thousands of years with hundreds of people doing their own translations and tell me the book would remain exactly the same.

Then let's make this book just a few more pages and call it the Bible.

To be fair, the Bible has only been translated once. It's been copied for thousands of years, though. The Old Testament we know today was written in Hebrew, and was translated directly from Hebrew to English in 1529. Judaism has a large number of copies of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, known as the Tanakh. The New Testament was written in both Greek and Aramaic. Then it was translated to Latin in 405, I think. The version we know today was translated from the original Greek straight to English, also in 1529.


I think I got those facts straight. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
OK. I dare ANYONE to take a, say, 25 paged book (pretty small), translate it to Japanese, Chinese, Russian, back to English, and repeat this over thousands of years with hundreds of people doing their own translations and tell me the book would remain exactly the same.

Then let's make this book just a few more pages and call it the Bible.

How ya doing Brother Tass?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

To be fair, the Bible has only been translated once. It's been copied for thousands of years, though. The Old Testament we know today was written in Hebrew, and was translated directly from Hebrew to English in 1529. Judaism has a large number of copies of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, known as the Tanakh. The New Testament was written in both Greek and Aramaic. Then it was translated to Latin in 405, I think. The version we know today was translated from the original Greek straight to English, also in 1529.


I think I got those facts straight. Correct me if I am wrong.

A 'Bible', that is, a collection of the books of prophets, apostles, etc was not created until 3-400 years after the death of Christ and the Apostles, using whatever books could be found, many of which had already lost pages, etc. Add to that priests who took it upon themselves to edit the Bible to fit their views, as well as simple human error, and you find a book that, while still containing God's Word, is imperfect and flawed.

[Capt Dizle]

I didn't read every word of this thread but from what I did I missed any mention of inspiration. Does anyone want to comment on that?

[Az]

Answer to question about discontinuation of Animal sacrifice:

as of ~700BC, with the centralization of Worship in Judea, It has been strictly forbidden to make sacrifices anywhere but inside the temple, and I have a note from god to prove it.

Since there is no temple, and none of the temple golden artifacts have been found ( Though the tinfoil plated black hat ultraorthodox will say that it's hidden in the Vatican, I call BS ), you cannot build neither a mobile shrine, nor the temple. Thus, no sacrifice.

QED.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Aaaah!!!!!!!!! The Ignorance!!!!! It's blinding!!!

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

I am happily blind to your dogma, friend.

And I care not for your cut and pasted quotes of borrowed wisdom.

[curtsibling]

Ben 'Kenobist' managed to evade me in another thread.

Perhaps some religionists here can go to some faith-website and cut and paste an answer to these?

1. Why do people have to pray?

2. Tell me how the men who wrote the bible were acting on a god's orders, and not merely deluded.

3. How many of you hold the creation theory as solid truth and not a morality tale?

No quotes from 'bible.sheep.com' please.
I appreciate answers garnered from your own minds, you are educated, so show it!

Thanks for enlightening a poor heathen!

[Elok]

Er, are you suggesting that we explain the purpose of faith WITHOUT using any theological terms whatsoever, CS? Tall order there.

[curtsibling]

I could have faith in a cabbage.

Faith has little to do with knowledge.

You religionists think you know better.

Show it.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Elok
Er, are you suggesting that we explain the purpose of faith WITHOUT using any theological terms whatsoever, CS? Tall order there.

Faith could be explained in purely evolutionary terms.

[curtsibling]

Faith is just an excuse to avoid answering the real questions.

A religionist just cannot admit he has not got a clue about the greater cosmos.

But the non-believer can see the obvious.

Religion and it's trappings are inventions to dupe people.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

To be fair, the Bible has only been translated once. It's been copied for thousands of years, though. The Old Testament we know today was written in Hebrew, and was translated directly from Hebrew to English in 1529. Judaism has a large number of copies of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, known as the Tanakh. The New Testament was written in both Greek and Aramaic. Then it was translated to Latin in 405, I think. The version we know today was translated from the original Greek straight to English, also in 1529.


I think I got those facts straight. Correct me if I am wrong.

Okay, you and Ben Kenobi are wrong.

The most ironic thing is that people study "the" Bible to the point of memorizing hundreds of pages word for word, and know so little of the origin of what they are studying.

I'm no Biblical scholar, in fact I consider myself rather ignorant, but I know enough to refute your claim.

So there is only an English Bible? No French, Spanish or Italian translation?

"The version we know today" - well, I guess that would depend quite a bit on whether you are Catholic or Protestant, wouldn't it?

For English-speaking Protestants, most of the Bibles in use have derived from the King James Version. This was generated around 1611. While the intent was to translate from original texts, you can see by the following article, that a variety of previous English translations were used for guidance, as well as previous Latin translations.

If you know anything about translation, you know that some words cannot be accurately translated, because synomyms simply don't exist. And you know that significant judgement must be exercised. And you probably know that simply changing the PUNCTUATION can significantly alter the meaning of a passage.

If you know anything about linguistics, you would know that language evolves to such an extent that in 700 to 1000 years, the SAME LANGUAGE becomes unintelligble to the previous "edition". Old English is unintelligible. Middle English marginally so. This is to say nothing of the meaning mutations in the OT over two score of centuries...

Okay, so here is an article on the King James version. It is written by a noted Biblical scholar who supports the translation and the process by which it is done; it is by no means critical or anti-Bible. (Bolded text mine.)

A Brief History of the King James Bible

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance
As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:
"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. *** Privilegio."

The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations.

So while the stated intent was a translation from the original, it is very questionable how much ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek these scholars new. They admit thenselves, however, that they had availed themselves of various previous English translations, and attempted to merge them into the "best" version.

Try to imagine, given the political ramifications and the conflict with the Puritans, that the translation paid for by the state was totally without political influence, accidental or intentional. I cannot.

Bottom Line:

Do not rely on the literal word of the Bible.

Look upon Jesus. Understand Jesus from your readings of the Bible. If he were among us today, how would he treat homosexuals? Do you think he would condemn them, and urge persecution?

Looking to the Bible to find snippets of words that justify for your own feelings (of intolerance) seems to me, a sin against God.

[curtsibling]

Well said, Mad Viking!

Spoken like someone you has an understanding of what he believes in.

You see I only deplore those who memorise the bible, and do not live from it.
Instead, using the religion as an elite badge, to bolster the ego.

And that is wrong.

Being just to each other is a thing I approve of.
But human greed tarnishes every bright thing we try.

Again, nice post!

[The Mad Viking]

Thanks.

[DinoDoc]

Why weren't any of the CivNation threads archived? They were entertaining and answered all the questions Jaguar Warrior asked.

[loinburger]

Wasn't there some sort of server crash/move that destroyed most of the archives?

JohnT might have a few of them saved on disk...

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
So, the law is still in place, all of it. But those who put their faith in Christ are subject to none of it. Does that mean that can "break" the law whenever we chose? Well, technically, yes, but those who have been saved will not want to do so, because doing so shows a lack of respect for God.

That makes sense, but the question still remains as to how homosexuals are showing more disrespect to God than are, e.g., those who eat shellfish, or those who have sex with a woman in the week following her menstrual cycle, etc. If homosexuals are not showing more disprespect to God than the other sinners listed, then I don't understand why so many people gets their ass tied in a knot over homosexuality.

[The Mad Monk]

The archives are continuously self-destructing, at least in the case of the OT. In addition, I don't believe they are covered by the general search -- you have to search them specifically.

Curt, I can see you're just doing this for laughs, and you have no intention of being serious.

Please let me know if the situation changes.

[Jon Miller]

I was pretty sure that the bible has been restranslated from the greek/whatever and hebrew several times since the King James version

I could be wrong though

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

For a Jewish view, JW, check out this:

http://hometown.aol.com/ecorebbe/myhomepage/rant.html

This site attempts to present all points of view:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

The easiest way to explain things to the people you're arguing with is that there was no understanding of "homosexuality" as a sexual orientation in those days. Jews looked upon it as a practice associated with pagan religious rituals, which is why it was so abhorred in the light of their unwillingness to tolerate other religions. That there are sexual orientations was not discovered until the late 19th/early 20th centuries. So in the minds of the ancients, people engaging in such acts weren't naturally inclined do so, but rather they were acting against their own nature and engaging in these acts.

That's why any Bible which uses the term "homosexual" is inaccurate. It is changing words to play into popular misconceptions and prejudices. I've been over this before about how the NIV is regarded as notoriously unreliable in many regards, but it fits some folks agenda, so theycontinue to use it...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by loinburger
Wasn't there some sort of server crash/move that destroyed most of the archives?

JohnT might have a few of them saved on disk...


That makes sense, but the question still remains as to how homosexuals are showing more disrespect to God than are, e.g., those who eat shellfish, or those who have sex with a woman in the week following her menstrual cycle, etc. If homosexuals are not showing more disprespect to God than the other sinners listed, then I don't understand why so many people gets their ass tied in a knot over homosexuality.

I really don't know; I suspect that it is not the sin itself, but refusal to recognize it as a sin that is the problem.

That is strictly my own view.