Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

It depends on if the translation is correct. The actual Hebrew wording is discussed here.

http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm
Leviticus 20:13
Correct translation:
And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them.
This is the correct translation of Leviticus 20:13. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own.

__________

Are you serious? The Bible states clearly that there should be one head of household, [Man]. In Genesis, God told woman that her "desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

He rules over his wife but she owns the bed & says who lays in it?


As stated, if the KJV was erroneously copied from the original Hebrew, the wording is incorrect.  Was I serious?  Yes, do you have a problem with the original Hebrew or do you just want to go with the Bible, which you claim is false?

Old Faithful
 
June 25, 2013 9:26 AM
 

Hi Picker,

 

If you search, you can find almost any lifestyle supported by some web sites which claim to be Christian.

I wasn't trying to support any lifestyle, just noting that many sites claim that the original Hebrew was erroneously copied. You can believe anything you want to. I realize that your view of 'the Bible can't be in error' would be in jeopardy if there are copying errors, but it is plain to me, that errors were made. Unless you can tell me that you are fluent in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew and have personally viewed the most original documents that are available, I am going with there are errors in all versions of the Bible past the original copies.

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

As stated, if the KJV was erroneously copied from the original Hebrew, the wording is incorrect.  Was I serious?  Yes, do you have a problem with the original Hebrew or do you just want to go with the Bible, which you claim is false?

______

I wasn't trying to be rude with my "are you serious" & I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I'm sure there is much in the Bible (if true) that is false or was written down wrong, even the original Hebrew writing of it.

I'm just finding it hard to believe your explanation of it.

 

If your version of the Hebrew translation is that Leviticus 20:13 of the Bible is wrong, that it actually means two males can't lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. That culturally, a woman's bed was her own, then how much more is incorrect? How can anyone know if what they believe today is true?


If anyone goes back to read the Hebrew meaning of scripture, they would most likely have to completely change their way of thinking. Can you imagine how hard that would be?


No, I wouldn't want to just go with the Bible. I would love to know the truth. I don't think I have said I know the Bible is false, I said I don't know for a fact. I'm willing to listen to anyone that can prove to me it's true & tell me why prayers aren't answered.

 

Crumbpicker, thought you might find this interesting.

 

Leviticus 20:13 Original Hebrew Language

h'Viayeb.K.vimr'k'z-t,a b;K.vIy r,v]a vyia.w
~,hyem.D
.Wt'm.Wytw{m ~,hyen.v .Wf'[ h'be[w{T
~'B

King James Translation with words in bold letters showing how they were translated from Hebrew.

Leviticus 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

man -Xya'iysh  Xya 'iysh (eesh);  Noun Masculine     male (in contrast to woman, female)

lie- bkXShakab (shaw-kab');  Verb     to lie down

mankind- rkz Zakar (zaw-kawr');  male (of humans)

bkXm Mishkab (mish-kawb');  Noun Masculine    a lying down, couch, bier, bed, act of lying

hXXa'ishshah (ish-shaw');  Noun Feminine      woman, wife, female,  woman (opposite of man)

King James Version: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

New International Version translation: “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

English Standard Version: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

International Standard Version: "If a man has sexual relations with another male as he would with a woman, both have committed a repulsive act. They are certainly to be put to death.

Homan Christian Standard Bible: If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable thing. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.

NET Bible: If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

New Living Translation: "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

All the other bible translations using master scholars of the Hebrew language translate basically the same thing. If you truly believe, there's no confusion on the matter except for those who want to confuse it.

 

Semi,

This is from my original quoted cite.  The site breaks down each word and sylable and gives the culturally meaning at the time. As you can see, your site and mine don't even have the same wording in Hebrew. If two sites, both claiming to have it exactly translated don't even come close, then how could layman, without any experience in languages other than their own, make accurate copies 2000 years ago?


Below is a word by word translation of this verse:

 

 

ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם 

 

V’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam.


 

V’ish - This is two words. First,  V’, which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, ish. This word means man. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a man. So the first two words of this verse are And a man.

 

 asher - This word means who, which or that, depending on context. Since it is used with a man, it would mean who. And a man who.

 

 yishkav - This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed. The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it means lie down. The first letter of the word, y, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate yishkav into English will require four words. The word translates as he will lie down. If a subject is already present in the sentence, as in this case, then the pronoun of the verb (he) is omitted in translation. And a man who will lie down.

 

 et - This word means with. And a man who will lie down with.

 

 zachar - This word means male. The verse so far reads And a man who will lie down with a male.


The rest is at the site, for it is too long to re-copy here.

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

Semi,

As you can see, your site and mine don't even have the same wording in Hebrew. If two sites, both claiming to have it exactly translated don't even come close, then how could layman, without any experience in languages other than their own, make accurate copies 2000 years ago?

________
Good point. If both Hebrew translations are different, which one does a person know to believe? Just pick one & go with it? How can anyone believe something written 2000 years ago that can't even know for fact is true?
That's like the COC believing they are the only ones going to Heaven, & the Catholic believing they are the one & only true church. Might be true, might not. There's no way we can know. This is why I question all of it.

Well, whatever it means, seems to me that if you (in general) believe that following it is the only way to go, then following the whole thing would make sense...you get to pick what you like and ignore what you don't?  Following the whole thing is going to get people in a bit of trouble and I don't see people much doing that in this country.  I mean if you (generally) are going to be condemning others for not following one part of a book, it seems to me you better be pretty near perfect yourself with the whole book or you set yourself up for justified criticism.  

 

And then I would say that if a person happens to believe every word of the book is absolute...or at least the parts s/he picks out to follow...then cool and go for it within the bounds of civil law.  But since no one can prove it was actually inspired by someone omnipotent, then it is a personal choice and not one that anyone should be expecting anyone else to follow.  And then there is the judge not and the stone-casting part to consider, which if you are going to follow it all you (generally) should be following, doesn't it come down to if you don't think it's okay then that is your personal business and leave everyone else alone in their lives?  

 

  But since no one can prove it was actually inspired by someone omnipotent,

 

And that is the main point of faith. I do not know and I really don't think any one can know for certain until they die.  Once you reach that point, you have already missed the boat, so to speak. So if the omnipotent being exists and we can only be sure after we die, then is it fair to be punished for having doubts?  I think not, but that is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Good point. If both Hebrew translations are different, which one does a person know to believe? Just pick one & go with it? How can anyone believe something written 2000 years ago that can't even know for fact is true?
That's like the COC believing they are the only ones going to Heaven, & the Catholic believing they are the one & only true church. Might be true, might not. There's no way we can know. This is why I question all of it.

I had a good friend who was CoC as a child.  His father was even the preacher/minister/brother/deacon/ whatever the term is. He hated going to church, was forced to wear what would would call 'preppy' clothes, and could not date until 18. When he finally did marry, his wife cheated on him and even became pregnant. He stayed with her and supposedly fixed things up, but I think his awful restrictions at home caused a lot of his problems.

Hi Chick,

 

No matter what church a person attends -- if he/she wants to be miserable -- they will accomplish it.   On the other hand, if a person wants to find warmth in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- you can find that in any Christian church.  

 

The key is to just relax, don't worry about the folks sitting around you -- what they are wearing or how badly they sing off key -- or even if they are good Christians.  Just soak in the warmth of Christ's love -- and you be happy in Christ.

 

My Friend, give it a try.  What have you got to lose -- except an eternity away from God?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Good-Shepherd - 1

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Good-Shepherd - 1

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×