That's right! - and, you know, I hadn't thought of that!


See:

'James VI and I and the History of Homosexuality'

a book 'that illuminates Jacobean politics and challenges many current assumptions about effeminacy, manliness, sodomy, sexual constructs and sexual discourse before the 18th century'
(From the Amazon synopsis.)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0333633784/202-7956033-3736626?v=glance&n=266239

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Elizabeth/books.html
http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page136.asp

Perhaps that's why so many of the passages concerning sexuality were slanted against homosexuals in the biblical translation.

As all of us enlightened agnostics keep pointing out, the translations by definition cannot be totally accurate, and the translators of every time period had their own cultures and political interests to worry about.

If that's the case how do you explain subsequent translations all from original Jewish / Early Christian manuscripts that say the same thing? Were those "translations" against homosexuals? If I write "Mary had a little lamb" and you translated it how could you possibly get "Mary gave birth to a little lamb"? You couldn't. You'd get exactly what I wrote. We have hundreds of Jewish text, and early Christian writings to compare with one another. How could everyone who translated the text be wrong?

King James sexuality has no bearing on this conversation because we have the original Greek text. All they did was use this same original text to translate from.

Believer posted:

Actually this is a good example of how translations can confuse meanings. Today we frequently say someone "had" a baby. In today's venacular it is entirely possible that someone familiar the terminology of "having" a child would/could translate "Mary had a little lamb" as "Mary gave birth to a little lamb"".


In much the same way that "knew" or "knowing" is synonymous with sexual relations in the Bible--but the phrasology is not in use today. So although I have "known" many people--that does not mean I have had sexual relations with them. Translators use the words and phrases they are most familiar with--but even in writings using formal language there are words that are not translatable, or have different meanings in different contexts.

Good point, but I have one question. How can someone interpret "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" to mean anything other than same sex partnerings are an abomination to God?

Your statement, and your biblical quote have different meanings.

The quote specifically states men/men. You have chosen to expand this significantly to both sexes without explaining why.

It would seem that biblically, it's okay for women to sleep with women.

Actually when you read other books in the Bible you start to realize that it's not ok. Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

The old testament focused more on the male because scripture in the old testament was more male dominated, but that didn't mean that both were not wrong in God's eyes.

Then your statement is based on your interpretation of things that come from several different places within the bible. And you agree that it's not specifically stated?

Um yes I agree it's not one specific place it's actually several places that give this command against homosexuality. Not my interpretation of the commands but the actual commands in several places within the Bible.

You know, just to totally throw a wrench into the works here.....

I wonder how much more godly, helpful, charitable, productive etc., it might possibly be if those of us who have participated in the 258 posts and 18 pages thus far on this topic took the same time and energy and invested it in helping the poor or the destitute or the hungry, or an orphaned child, etc. -- instead of trying to figure out how God judges homosexuals.

Or should we start investing time and energy into speculating about how God is going to judge those of us who wear poly-cotton blends or plant corn and beans in the same field (Leviticus 19:19) or who clip the hair at the sides of our heads (Lev. 19:27)?

I know this is a discussion group and that's what we are doing - discussing. I just had a wild and wooly out of the blue notion that who sins and who doesn't is really God's business and not mine to decide.

But hey, that's just me.