I’m NOT looking for a debate on whether homosexuality is ethical, etc.
Many christians oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. But I’m unable to find anywhere in the bible that specifically says anything about homosexuality either way. The closest I can find is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah – many people assume God destroyed those cities for homosexuality, but the bible doesn’t seem to say either way.
Am I missing something? Is there some other passage I haven’t noticed?
Well the Bible does say something like, be fruitfull and multiply, I dont know the exact verse. I would think that many christians take this as meaning a man and a woman having babies.
I tell you what, the gays have doen great they seem to me multiplying and many seem quite fruity so in the eyes of God they must be caring out the word. I wonder where the misinterpretation came from?
Well, this is second-hand from googling, but:
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Judges 19, the Levite in Gibeah, seems to be unclear depending on the translation.
Goggling also reveals that there are differences of opinion about the translations. Remember, the Bible wasn’t originally written in English – there are disagreements among Biblical scholars and linguists as to the meaning of some of the original Hebrew and Aramaic words and expressions. Man wrote the Bible; whether you wish to believe they used the “word of God” in doing so…well, that’s up to you. Personally, I have my doubts.
The two verses in Leviticus are the only ones that can logically be argued to say “homosexuality is bad”. The others are mistranslations or misinterpretations.
But this has been done before. I believe that this is the most comprehensive thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254930&highlight=homosexuality+Bible
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Verses 26+27 are the two that are most often quoted. I posted the other verses for context. Read the entire first chapter of Romans to get better context.
Here is a pretty good synopsis of the topic from both a conservative and liberal point of view.
I implore you to check out the rest of Leviticus, and draw your own judgments based on the context. I will say nothing more.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvLevi.html
I really don’t think it’s possible to approach this topic without debate; passages that one camp claim are absolutely unequivocal in their identification/condemnation of homosexuality are claimed by other camps to be actually talking about something else.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah does not refer to homosexuality either in the sense of a general preference for sexual intercourse with members of one’s own sex (sexual orientation). Neither does it refer to intercourse between members of the same sex due to some other motivation (rape, curiosity, lack of access to the opposite sex, etc.).
Some people find it convenient to justify a hatred of homosexuals by reading the line, “so that we may *know * them,” as meaning “so that we may have sexual intercourse with them,” arguing that this must be correct because the word for “to know” is used in a tiny minority of verses as a euphemism for “to have sexual intercourse [with]” (most of the time, it means pretty much the same things as “to know [someone]” in English). In fact, the more likely reading is, “so that we may learn who they are” or “so that we may confirm that they are who you say they are.”
If you’re looking for verses that explicitly refer to sexual acts, Leviticus is your best bet, but like others in this thread, I urge you to consider those verses in their literary, theological, and historical context before drawing any conclusions.
Another interesting thing to consider is the story of Ruth and Naomi in Ruth 1:3-18
14] And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
[15] And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
[16] And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
[17] Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
[18] When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her."
and David and Jonathan 1 Samuel 18:1-4
[1] And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
[2] And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.
[3] Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
[4] And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
there are other references to these two couples. Even though they are not evertly spoken of as having sex there are some implications.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean a factual answer can’t be given. “Romans 1:26-27 says this in one translation and this is another. There is dispute on the meaning, this camp says this and that camp says that.” It’s just that partisanship tends to get in the way of those answers.
That said, I don’t see how the Leviticus verses could be interpreted in any other way than as a clear condemnation of male homosexual behaviour (not male homosexual urges). There is the “promiscuity versus steady relationships” argument and we will never know what the author of those verses would have said about modern-day homosexuality, but those two verses are pretty clear.
Agreed, although what you’re doing there is to trying present viewpoints within the debate, which was sort of my point.
These are the verses generally cited in the debate:
Genesis 19:4 - 7 (Sodom and Gomorrha) [Ezekiel 16:49 answers this question]
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:22 - 27 (God punishes idolaters)
1 Corinthians 6:9 - 11 (mistranslation of arsenokoitai and malakoi)
1 Timothy 9 - 10 (mistranslation of arsenokoitai )
If you want to read a debate on this subject, please refer to the thread that I linked to before.
Rucksinator- your putting too much faith into DtC as a translator. It’s true that it certainly can be argued that Paul doesn’t condemn homosexuality as a whole, but just certain homosexual acts. But the raindog posted just about every single accepted translation of Romans 1:26,27 that is available, and none of them- all of which are translated by much better Greek translators than DtC- use DtC’s translation. (Most of them aren’t very precise, I do admit).
Of course- it is to be noted that Paul did condemn Adultery and Fornication, and (setting aside a few recent developements in Same-sex marriage)- you can’t have a gay sexual relationship without commiting one of those two “sins”. But that’s important to note- maybe Paul did condemn homosexual sex- but then again he condemned any sex outside of marriage just as loudly.
My understanding is that there are two passages specifically referring to homosexual acts. These are the Leviticus and Romans verses referenced above.
I am not a theologian, nor am I a Biblical scholor, but these two specific passages share another context, which is usually ignored.
In Leviticus, the Lord is giving what amounts to basic living instructions for the Hebrews in their new land. This was a land formerly occupied, and still surrounded by, pagans and polytheists. In order for the Hebrews to remain “holy” (which in its strictest sense mean “separate”), they needed to not assimilate into the societies and especially the religions surrounding them. If homosexuality were part of the pagan religious rites, engaging in them could promote pagan ideas infiltrating the monotheistic worship of Judaism. I believe this also explains the injunction against tattoos, although there may be other reasons.
Similarly, the audience to which Paul wrote (the Church at Rome) was divided between those Christians who were formerly Jews, and those who were formerly pagans. Paul does essentially the same thing that Leviticus does, reminding the Church that they are not to allow disparate religious ideas into the mix. Here again, same-sex acts (as well as heterosexual acts) may have been part of the context from which a number of worshipers came, and which they may have thought was okay to introduce to Christian worship.
This is my interpretation of these two passages. If anyone knows of specific flaws in it, I’d welcome their insight.
The problem with looking for references to homosexuality in the Bible to see “what the Bible says” on the matter is that such passages need to be read in the GREATER context of the passages/era/authors views on sexuality and gender relations as a whole.
E.g., it makes little sense to read about Leviticus on male to male sex or female to female sex without being aware of the overall direction of Leviticus on sexuality and/or gender. I don’t know what those details are, but I recall enough to doubt many people who point to this as condemning homosexuality are interested in living their life according to the rest of Leviticus.
And all of those versions are wrong. Show me an extant attestation from Classical Greek where either of those words indicated “homosexuality.” I’ve gone into detail on this subject several times and no such attestation exists. There is no justification for that translation. Quoting a series biased mistranslations is not an argument. Let’s see somebody actually make a linguistic case for those translations.
The point is that there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality by Paul. Trying to shoehorn it into a definition of “adultery” or “fornication” presumes definitions for those things which may or may not have existed.
Interesting DtC- you say yourself you’re no expert- but the raindog posted:
"King James
“For this cause God gave them up into vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet”
New Revised Standard
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. the women exchanged natural intercourse for the unnatural, and in the same way the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
New Jerusalem Bible
“That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shamefull things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.”
New World Translation
" That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
American Standard Version
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions, for their women changed the natural use into that is which is against nature:and likewise also the men leaving natural use of the woman burned in their lust toward one another, men with men, working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense, of their error which was due.”
Tyndale’s New Testament
“For even their women did change the natural use unto the unnatural. And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lusts one on another. And man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves the reward for their error, as it was according.”
New International Version
“Because of this, God gave then over to shameful lusts. Even their women exhanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural realtions with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion”
With all due respect to Diogenes, here are 3 translations from interlinear bibles, which translate the original text word for word. In these translations, both the Greek word and the corresponding English word appear side by side throught the whole bible translation:
Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible
“Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, foe even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving”
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripitures
“Through this gave beside them the God into passions of dishonor; the and for females of them exchanged the natural use into the (one) beside nature, likewise and also the males having let go off the matural use of the female were burned out in the lust of them into one another males in males the indecency working down and the return reward which it was necessary of the error of them in them receiving )back) from.”
The Interlinear Bible
“Because of this gave up them God to passions of dishonor; the even for females of them changed the natural use to the (use) against nature; likewise and also the males having forsaken the natural use of the female, burned in the lust of them toward one another, males among males the shamefullness working out, and the reward which behoved the straying of them, in themselves receiving back.”
These TEN translation, every one of which was translated by a group of paid, degreed prfessional translators, specialist in the subject. Yes, some of the transalations are dated, and they don’t all agree- but none of them agree with your translation.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible - with some 250+ experts in the field- dudes who teach Biblical Greek- also disagrees with your translation “Paul describes male-male sexual relations are “impurity”…” “Like other writers in the Roman world such as Philo, Ptolemy and Martial, Paul sees same-sex sexual relationships as transgressions of hierachical gender boundaries.”
Please don’t try and tell us that you are more of an expert on Biblical Greek than *all *of these paid professional experts- many of them with Doctorates & Professorships in this field. That would indeed be hubris. :dubious: :rolleyes:
I am not trying to “shoehorn” Paul’s clear prohibition of homosexuality into adultery or fornicatiion. I was simply pointing out that Paul condemns those as sins also, often in neighboring verses. Thus, Paul wasn’t singling out homosexual sexual relations- he was against any sexual relations outside of marriage (and he wasn’t all that thrilled about those, either).
Oh, and we have discussed Sodom here. According to The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “Some postbiblical Jewish and early Christian writers specifically define the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah as same sex relations rather than rape or inhopitality; see for example Jude 7 and Philo, De Abrahamo 26.134-36 (cf. 2 Pet 2.6; Testament of Naphtali 3.4-5; 4.10”
I didn’t dispute the Romans translation, I disputed the translations of arsonokoitai and * malkoi* from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.
The Romans passage is disputed by interpretation, not translation.
The identification of the sin of sodom as homosexuality is a non-starter but we’re getting into GD territory.
To try to turn this post back to a factual answer for the OP, the relevant verses have all been cited. None of them are universally agreed upon as to intent.