A lot of scholars point out that homosexuality wasn’t really a concept in the ancient world. Neither was marriage for love or anything other than a means to perpetuate genes and familial property. But what was very much a concept was machismo. Being a “bottom” (in different terms back then) was considered degrading and “womanly,” and that was typically the issue at hand, according to many scholars, such as DanMcClellan, Robert Alter, and Jerome Walsh.
Iirc, the hebrew word that gets translated to ‘lay’ is also a pretty suspect translation. Its only other usage in the OT (and our only other known context for it) is to describe a man pursuing his wife’s servant, and contextually, is more likely to mean ‘molest’ or ‘rape’ than to describe consensual sex.
The 2 words translated to ‘man’ are also different- the first being ‘ish’ the second being ‘zachar’
While both can generally refer to anyone male, ish can be used in the context of ‘anyone’, or ‘husband/ man of the house’, whereas Zachar is often used biblically to refer to young males, and /or subordinates.
So put together, this passage is likely ‘nobody should be molesting boys,’ or ‘a master shouldn’t rape his servants or children’
It’s less about it being gay that’s the problem than the fact that it’s an unspeakably horrific crime.
Intentionally covering for pedophiles, in my mind, removes any shred of credibility for the “moral guidance” offered by said organization. I was raised Catholic but I think even if I hadn’t become irreligious as I am now, I would still shun the Catholic church for a denomination less insanely corrupt and evil.
Considering how in the original Greek text of the New Testament the Apostles were all described as being between 10 and 19 years of age hanging out with 30-something year old Jesus, and how Jesus’ crucifixion was a result of him being caught in the middle of the night in the Garden of Gesthemane (Mark 14:51-52) with a naked boy, yeah I’d say they have a complicated relationship with gay molestation of the underage.
Certainly not the mainstream view taught in church but classical philologist Dr. Ammon Hillman has the receipts.
Unfortunately not mistranslated, but for sure another outdated thing to ignore. I heard it was probably discouraging people from joining a nearby cult thing in Egypt that had male male acts, which sounds like it was more about religious competition than homosexuality, but I’m no expert.
You know that discussing the Bible is not the same as apologetics?
I get religious trauma sucks, but the critical analysis of primary source texts from the ancient Near East has absolutely nothing to do with your shitty pastor giving you a hard time for being gay.
I invite you to name a 9th century BCE society that fits whatever moral requirements you think are needed to make a culture worthy of historical study.
They were studying language translation, after noticing the translations from Hebrew to German were very different than from Hebrew to English. It wasn’t interpretation of the material, it was an analysis of the translations.
The “mistranslation” is a disgusting myth, the bible and the primitives who wrote it didn’t give a fuck about pedophilia and you should not spread this disgusting lie. Reported.
Dude, you are lashing out at the wrong people. Be angry at the people who use religion to rape, murder, opress. Don’t be angry at people who discuss obscure translation errors.
Ironically the verse was mistranslated- it was a man who lays with a boy
https://www.advocate.com/religion/2022/12/17/how-bible-error-changed-history-and-turned-gays-pariahs
A lot of scholars point out that homosexuality wasn’t really a concept in the ancient world. Neither was marriage for love or anything other than a means to perpetuate genes and familial property. But what was very much a concept was machismo. Being a “bottom” (in different terms back then) was considered degrading and “womanly,” and that was typically the issue at hand, according to many scholars, such as DanMcClellan, Robert Alter, and Jerome Walsh.
Have they not hear about power bottoms?
Iirc, the hebrew word that gets translated to ‘lay’ is also a pretty suspect translation. Its only other usage in the OT (and our only other known context for it) is to describe a man pursuing his wife’s servant, and contextually, is more likely to mean ‘molest’ or ‘rape’ than to describe consensual sex.
The 2 words translated to ‘man’ are also different- the first being ‘ish’ the second being ‘zachar’
While both can generally refer to anyone male, ish can be used in the context of ‘anyone’, or ‘husband/ man of the house’, whereas Zachar is often used biblically to refer to young males, and /or subordinates.
So put together, this passage is likely ‘nobody should be molesting boys,’ or ‘a master shouldn’t rape his servants or children’
Of course it was. Of course Christianity took a line intended to protect children from abuse and “mistranslated” it to be homophobic.
Can’t really pretend that it’s not interpreted that way by some Jewish people. Not Reformed but certainly among the Orthodox.
Well it is also very important for Christians that molesting boys is just “oopsies” but not gay.
It’s less about it being gay that’s the problem than the fact that it’s an unspeakably horrific crime.
Intentionally covering for pedophiles, in my mind, removes any shred of credibility for the “moral guidance” offered by said organization. I was raised Catholic but I think even if I hadn’t become irreligious as I am now, I would still shun the Catholic church for a denomination less insanely corrupt and evil.
Considering how in the original Greek text of the New Testament the Apostles were all described as being between 10 and 19 years of age hanging out with 30-something year old Jesus, and how Jesus’ crucifixion was a result of him being caught in the middle of the night in the Garden of Gesthemane (Mark 14:51-52) with a naked boy, yeah I’d say they have a complicated relationship with gay molestation of the underage.
Certainly not the mainstream view taught in church but classical philologist Dr. Ammon Hillman has the receipts.
I mean, Jesus has limitless love, right?
Unfortunately not mistranslated, but for sure another outdated thing to ignore. I heard it was probably discouraging people from joining a nearby cult thing in Egypt that had male male acts, which sounds like it was more about religious competition than homosexuality, but I’m no expert.
Except it was mistranslated? There’s been quite a few studies showing it
Nice try Ai Spy boy.
Beep boop
yeah because they cared so much
stop those disgusting apologetics
You know that discussing the Bible is not the same as apologetics?
I get religious trauma sucks, but the critical analysis of primary source texts from the ancient Near East has absolutely nothing to do with your shitty pastor giving you a hard time for being gay.
I invite you to name a 9th century BCE society that fits whatever moral requirements you think are needed to make a culture worthy of historical study.
Huh? What was I apologizing for? The passage is mistranslated in English, wtf are you on about?
Just fyi, scholarly Bible interpretation is called “apologetics”.
They were studying language translation, after noticing the translations from Hebrew to German were very different than from Hebrew to English. It wasn’t interpretation of the material, it was an analysis of the translations.
The “mistranslation” is a disgusting myth, the bible and the primitives who wrote it didn’t give a fuck about pedophilia and you should not spread this disgusting lie. Reported.
You ok bro?
Dude, you are lashing out at the wrong people. Be angry at the people who use religion to rape, murder, opress. Don’t be angry at people who discuss obscure translation errors.