Leviticus: mistranslation?

[TunaForBrains]

Leviticus says one shall not lay with a man as he does with his wife.

However, lost in translation (but in the original) are the words: "on his wife's bed". Leaning more towards the refuting of adultery than to homosexuality.

Thoughts?

[Professor Bessemer]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Leviticus says one shall not lay with a man as he does with his wife.

However, lost in translation (but in the original) are the words: "on his wife's bed". Leaning more towards the refuting of adultery than to homosexuality.

Thoughts?

Yes, I have a thought.

I think you are a queer.

[eliot mayfield]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Leviticus says one shall not lay with a man as he does with his wife.

However, lost in translation (but in the original) are the words: "on his wife's bed". Leaning more towards the refuting of adultery than to homosexuality.

Thoughts?

That's in the KJV1611?

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Your evidence for this would be what exactly?

[Hank]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Not according to my Bible.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Leviticus says one shall not lay with a man as he does with his wife.

However, lost in translation (but in the original) are the words: "on his wife's bed". Leaning more towards the refuting of adultery than to homosexuality.

Thoughts?

The original Hebrew says "on his wife's bed" ??? Really? Does it now? And how do you know this? Do you read Hebrew? Please, post the original Hebrew on here, and point out the part that means "on his wife's bed". I'm very anxious.

Please, I wonder, why is it every single Biblical scholar has failed to notice that phrase and incorporate it into even the most liberal of Bible translations, not only in English, but into every language it's ever been translated into?

How is it that not only Christians have failed to realize what this verse REALLY means, but that even Jews, who READ THE ORIGINAL HEBREW fail to recognize what it means???

New International Version (©1984)
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.New Living Translation (©2007)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting.
King James Bible
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
American King James Version
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
American Standard Version
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Bible in Basic English
You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.
Darby Bible Translation
And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.
English Revised Version
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Webster's Bible Translation
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
World English Bible
"'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable.
Young's Literal Translation
And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.

Notice of course it also makes no reference to "a wife" as you claim. You do know lying is a sin, right?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Leviticus says one shall not lay with a man as he does with his wife.

However, lost in translation (but in the original) are the words: "on his wife's bed". Leaning more towards the refuting of adultery than to homosexuality.

Thoughts?

Romans 1. Read it.

Both "the effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are called out among those who will not enter Heaven . . . along with thieves, liars, and murderers.

[BillSattler]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Leviticus says one shall not lay with a man as he does with his wife.

However, lost in translation (but in the original) are the words: "on his wife's bed". Leaning more towards the refuting of adultery than to homosexuality.

Thoughts?

Yes, I have a thought. You are going to burn in eternal fire for mistranslating Gods perfect word. God was speaking when he stated THOU meaning MAN.

KJV 1611 Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

[TunaForBrains]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

18:22 v’et-zacar lo tishcab mish’c’bey ishar to’ebah he
20:13 v’iysh ashere yishcab et-zacar mish’c’bey ishar to’ebah asu sh’neyhem mot yumatu d'mehem bam

"Mish’c’bey" means beds or couches. When translated, the word "of" would follow as this is a construct noun, which denoted something belonging to the next absolute noun. Now the word "ishah" or in this case "ishar" is a noun that means "a woman." So it means "a woman's bed."

So Leviticus 18:22's real meaning: You shall not lie with a male on a wife's (woman and wife are synonymous) bed.
20:13 means: A man who lies down with a male on a woman’s beds – they have committed (done) an abomination. Both of them shall be put (executed) to death; their blood is upon themselves.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 don't say homosexual acts are wrong. It says "Do not cheat on your wife with a man." It says do not cheat on your wife, because back in the Biblical days, you could have several wives, so if you have two or more, it's not cheating. But since two men couldn't get married, if a husband had sex with another man, it is cheating on the wife (wives). So really, the true meaning of the Bible and adultery and homosexuality has literally been lost in translation.
Homosexual acts, in this context at least, are wrong because they were adultery, not because they were homosexual acts.


The Leviticus we have now means the same thing as the original texts, but our understanding and views have changed they way we read it. The original text in Leviticus 18:22 reads "A man shall not lie with a man in a women's/wife's bed" (Woman and wife were synonyms back then.) Today, that text has beent ranslated as "A man shall not lie with a man as a woman." From face value, they seem totally opposite. They aren't. As I said, in the original language, wife and woman were synonyms. You also could marry several women, and having sex with an unmarried woman was like marrying her.

Figure it out yet? Take the text we have now, and swap 'woman" with "wife." "A man shall not lie with a man like a wife." Adultery is a sin in the Bible, that is perfectly clear. That is what this situation is. It's adultery. A man couldn't marry a man, therefore he couldn't have sex with a man and if he did it was cheating on his wife.

it all makes sense if you think about how back then homosexual was nothing more than an act instead of a fixed, natural orientation, and back then English was still changing and growing, and translating ancient languages into modern English is hard to do as words and synonyms are changed to make it sound American while retaining the same meaning. Leviticus 18:22 retains it's original meaning, but it phrases it in such a way that,w ith our views an understanding now, we read to mean something it doesn't.

Leviticus 18:22 is the only passage regarding sexuality that does NOT say "You shall not have sexual relations with..." but instead says "A male shall not lie with another male." All of the other rules in Leviticus 18 begin with "You shall not have sexual relations with..." except this one. Not to mention, Leviticus was written as a code for God's Israelite Covenant, and said that these rules did not apply to his Christian followers.

Romans 1:26-27 is the most substantiated Bible quote (yet, ironically, not the most perpetuated) and its flaws really come down to Paul commenting on what is or isn't natural. However, one of the word strange word choices in Romans 1:26-27, and it was the preposition complementing natural (the preposition was para), which ended up being an odd word choice. There were like five or so odd word choices. And ironically, all of them when translated have a negative connotation in English that may not be present in the Greek writing. Corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:14 (I think those are the right quotes, may be wrong) demonstrate that while the Bible was being translated the translators had a bias against homosexuals and translated one of two ambiguous words as homosexual, even though neither of them imply homosexuality.

And, connotation is not very transitive amongst languages, and Romans 1:26-27 is a victim of poor connotative transition. There's probably articles out there dissecting the Greek Romans 1:26-27 and exploring the connotation of each Greek phrase.

As a whole, Romans was about idolatry.

And last but not least, would lesbians not be smitten as well?

Aaand
The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do not appear in the Bible, as they were absent from the original languages themselves.
Paul had to create a new word (because there wasn't a word for homosexuals or homosexuality). This word was arsenokoiths, which was a combination of the greek words cot (bed) and male (man). Literally, this word means "go to bed with a man." This word does not imply what sex is going to bed with a man, nor what kind of a man the unidentified party is going to bed with. This original word in no way implies homosexuality, however today it does for some odd reason.

Back then there was also no concept of sexual orientation as we know them today.

[Wide-Open]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

TL;DR

So it's OK to be a homer as long as it's not in the spousal bed?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

And last but not least, would lesbians not be smitten as well?

Yes. Who suggested they are not?

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

King James Bible
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Of course, our KJV is the best. "Mankind" instead of simply " a man" is closer to reality, as it's plural. The homosexuals and lesbians never stop at just one.

(Which is what makes them even more of a threat, of course.)

[TunaForBrains]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Yes, the Hebrew has been mistranslated. That's why JEWISH people (and not just modern ones, since ancient times) believe that verse refers to homosexuality, right?

[Overwhelming theological argument snipped]

"However, this same resolution made a distinction between civil marriages and religious marriages; this resolution thus stated: However we may understand homosexuality, whether as an illness, as a genetically based dysfunction or as a sexual preference and lifestyle - we cannot accommodate the relationship of two homosexuals as a "marriage" within the context of Judaism, for none of the elements of qiddushin (sanctification) normally associated with marriage can be invoked for this relationship.[7]"

Irrelevant.

and besides Jesus said to love everyone, people just misconstrue his teachings.

Moreover him and John had serious bromance going on.

[Brother Enoch]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

people just misconstrue his teachings.

Indeed. You are a fantastic example of that.

Don't you have a same-sex partner you should be fondling about now rather than bothering True Christians™ with your infantile assertions/misconceptions/delusions/heresy/blasphemy?

[BillSattler]

Re: Leviticus: mistranslation?

Moreover him and John had serious bromance going on.

I cannot recall being this offended by a heathen in my life. I am deeply offended on two fronts. The first, your pathetic grasp of Gods chosen language (American). The second your guttural suggestion that my blessed Savior Jesus would have a "bromance" [sic] with John the Apostle. Sir, I must beg you recant these utterances or face eternal fire. I pray it is too late for you.