To Fundamentalist Christians: Why can the following Bible verses be ignored while others cannot?

I would like to first state clearly that I personally believe that women should have the right to be in leadership and pastoral positions within the Faith, and that I do not believe people who have divorced will be going to Hell.  I am merely pointing out the gross moral and religious hypocrisy perpetrated by those who use a few Bible verses to reject and condemn gay people to Hell..

Matthew 7 – “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

The Christians who repeatedly use their measure and judgment to attack, condemn, persecute, and reject gay people with are now being measured and judged by their same standards, and are found to have fallen far short, and are shown to be full of religious hypocrisy. They have been found to be exactly as the people in Matthew 23:28 describe them.

Since such people took it upon themselves to judge and measure others in clear defiance of what the Bible teaches ‘not’ to do, they have thus brought the same judgment back upon themselves as the Bible says will happen in such situations.

Now, here are my questions to every Christian who repeatedly commits the sin listed above:

Where in the Bible does it say it’s okay to repeatedly and unrepentantly ignore and disobey the teachings from Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as most Christians do today?

Where in the Bible does it say it’s okay to repeatedly and unrepentantly ignore and disobey the 7th Commandment, as defined by Luke 16:18 as most Christians do today?

Why is it that almost all churches openly welcome into their congregations the following people who have committed the following unrepentant sin (as defined by Biblical Scripture), while rejecting and condemning ‘unrepentant’ homosexuals? Unrepentant, because so many keep divorcing and re-marrying with no rejection or negative consequences by their congregations, such as is done to homosexual people.

Is there a place in the Bible where it says you can ignore the sin of people repeatedly committing adultery as defined by the Bible below, but the same people and churches who ignore that sin can repeatedly attack, condemn, and reject gay people for their perceived sins? For some strange reason, no one is able to answer these questions…. unless of course, it is because they are practicing utter religious hypocrisy.

Exodus 20:14 (One of the 10 Commandments)

“You shall not commit adultery.”

Luke 16:18

“Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit the kingdom of God? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime.”

So many Christians try to rationalize this away, but it is clear that if one uses literal interpretation it then means that a Chrisitan can neither divorce someone if the spouse has not committed adultery, nor marry someone who is divorced without becoming an adulterer themselves.

There is an exception to the rule, however. If a spouse commits adultery, divorce is permissible.

On the same token, the Bible also says that anyone who obtains a divorce and marries another is an adulterer. Remember that 83% of this country identifies as Christian yet we have a 50% divorce rate for first marriages, a 67% divorce rate for 2nd marriages, and a 73% divorce rate for 3rd marriages and beyond..

A majority of divorces are a result of irreconcilable differences, not adultery,which shows that such Christians are again practicing selective morality. How many Christians are working on a second, third or fourth marriage?

On the following subject of religious hypocrisy and double-standards, I’m completely aware that for most modern-day churches the following teachings are completely inconvenient and most might say, not applicable to an enlightened, modern society. Still…. why is it that almost all Churches do not obey the following New Testament teachings, and ignore them? Where in the Bible does it say it’s okay to ignore these commands?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“Women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.…”

1 Timothy 2:11-12

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

It quite clearly says that an adulterer cannot enter the Kingdom of God, and yet the majority of modern day congregations are all adulterers by the Bible’s clear definition, and the majority of modern day congregations allow their women members to speak anytime they wish to in church, even though the Bible clearly says in the New Testament that that’s forbidden. So… Please educate me on why the examples of sin, commandments, and teachings listed above can be ignored, while the sin of homosexual love and desire, cannot be.

Why do most congregations accept and welcome into their churches, people who are living in open adultery every day as defined by the following verse, while they reject gay people?  The verse is exceptionally clear in its definition.

Luke 16:18

Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adulteryand the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

A perfect example of the Christian moral gross hypocrisy daily committed by conservative leaders who regularly attack the dignity, and basic human and constitutional rights of homosexuals while repeatedly ignoring the sins they and their followers commit themselves such as the sin of adultery is Newt Gingrich:  

A former Southern Baptist, Gingrich converted to Catholicism in 2009 and has become a champion of conservative Catholic doctrine ever since. After losing the Republican presidential primary in 2012, he has become a champion of “religious freedoms,” which he says are being eroded by the secular state. The former front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, unloaded a detailed explanation of why he believes same-sex marriage is eroding American families and why “don’t ask, don’t tell” would have been his policy as president, while even floating a theory that U.S. military commanders were lying about whether they support its repeal.

However, the marriage rate in Massachusetts has stayed basically the same, while the divorce rate has plummeted to amongst the lowest in the nation after being the first state to legalize same-sex marriage 11 years ago, so it actually ‘strengthened’ the institution of marriage rather than weakened it.  And years later, we now can see that the repeal of DADT did nothing to weaken our military.

On top of all that, Gingrich says people choose to be gay, like priests choose to be celibate, which is patently false.

As part of his appeal to social conservatives, Gingrich  announced that he agreed to anti-gay pledges from the Iowa Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage, which both committed him to a backing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In the NOM pledge, Gingrich also promised to use his power as president to investigate those who support marriage equality for alleged harassment of groups like NOM.

Prominent Atlanta-based pastor and Religious Right figure Richard Lee said the nation’s evangelicals needed to support Gingrich.

Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Christian oriented Liberty University, supported him for president as well.

And yet, Newt Gingrich has divorced twice and been married three times, living in open adultery. His two previous marriages ended in divorce after he had affairs with younger women and when his wives were seriously ill.

And so again I ask: Why do most congregations who condemn and reject gay people who wish to marry each other, accept and welcome into their churches, people who are living in open adultery every day as defined by the following verse?  The verse is exceptionally clear in its definition.

Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community’s treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as one-half of God’s most important commandment: to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins” that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the exact same clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

It sounds like adulterers get an extremely convenient free pass from sin and can continue to divorce and re-marry any amount of times they wish, even though the Bible clearly says that adulterers cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Strangely enough, you don’t see the teachings on adultery leading to people being beaten, imprisoned, or murdered over, and yet we can see that happening all around the world over the ‘teachings’ they spread about homosexuality.

Some people constantly say that it is not them, but only ‘God’ or ‘the Bible’ which is the one judging gay people over how they were born, but it is not God down here speaking through a burning bush to us.. rejecting, condemning, and making other people feel like dirt or worthless, but ‘they’ themselves who are doing that, while exhorting others to do the same sinful and hateful thing; thus taking the place of God in doing so.

We can see that happening on a much more violent level today in Islam by the ISIS and Al-Qaeda fanatics… who seem to believe that they are ‘Allah’ or ‘God’ themselves on this Earth, and taking it upon themselves to brutalize, condemn, reject, judge, and in many cases kill the perceived ‘sinners’ in the name of their God, ignoring all teachings to not take the place of God in judgment, and all teachings of love and acceptance toward our fellow human souls we share this Earth with.

Thus began the shameful Christian Inquisition of our past… from precisely such misguided and hypocritical people.  





Tags: , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “To Fundamentalist Christians: Why can the following Bible verses be ignored while others cannot?”

  1. What about us Says:

    We all fall short on the Glory of God.
    But a true christian, must rebuke, and: all the things listed above, and what the bible teaches about being gay. But when we rebuke, we, as christians, have to do it: kindly and with tenderness; meaning, that someone who is gay is not less or more a sinner as I am. And I agree with you, that the sin comitted, in putting up a stumblingblock for another person; is a sin that comes from the most dangerous sin; wich is: spiritual pride. And that sin you just rebuked. But that does not cover the sin, being gay!


  2. aaglaas Says:

    Hi what about us. Thank you for being honest enough to admit the moral hypocrisy of those Christians who condemn gay people’s perceived sins while ignoring all of their own. That said, a reasonable person would say that until they address their many own sins that they ignore, they have no business addressing the perceived sins of gay people.

    How does the Bible address homosexuality – when the word itself didn’t even exist until 1869? The word first appeared in Germany to describe the fact that from birth some people are predisposed toward persons of the same sex. Since the biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) had no words for heterosexual or homosexual, it is anachronistic and misleading when ‘homosexual’ is used to translate a biblical text. It is wrong to proclaim the biblical view of homosexuality since there is none. This violates the integrity of the individual texts and the biblical witness as a whole. Each reference to what is today homosexuality must be read in the light of the particular literary, cultural, and historic contexts of any particular passage.

    For example, I Cor 6:9, in no way refers to homosexuality in generality. The original Greek word often quoted as “sexual immorality” Paul used was “porneia”, which means “idolatrous intercourse”. In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes of both gender were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about – fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul’s words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshiping pagan sex gods.

    Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today’s homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist. Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts.

    The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the Hebrew word ‘toevah’, which definitely does not mean “abomination, besides the fact that it actually says 2 males shall not lay together in a woman’s bed.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians.

    Yet a close reading of the term toevah shows an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another.Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

    The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

    “When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.”

    Elsewhere, Deuteronomy 7:25-26 commands:

    You shall burn the statues of their gods in fire. Do not desire the silver and gold on them and take it onto yourself, else you be snared by it, for it is a toevah to YHVH your God. And you shall not bring toevah to your home

    Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 further identify idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and other “foreign” practices as toevah, and Deut. 20:18 says that avoiding toevah justifies the genocide of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanaites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. So, toevah is serious, but it is serious as a particular class of cultic offense: a transgression of national boundary. It is certainly not “abomination.”

    Toevah is used four times in Leviticus 18—once to refer to specific male, but not ‘general’, homosexual acts, and then three times as an umbrella term. As in Deuteronomy, the signal feature of toevot is that the other nations of the Land of Israel do them: “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit these toevot… because the people who were in the land before you did these toevot and made the land impure (tameh)” (Lev. 18:26-27; see also Lev. 18:29). The term is repeated with reference to specific homosexual activity in Lev. 20:13.

    Similarly, the Books of Kings and Chronicles use toevah nine times to refer to acts that other nations did in the Land of Israel:

    1 Kings 14:24 (general);
    2 Kings 16:3 (child sacrifice);
    2 Kings 21:2 and 2 Kings 21:11 (idolatry);
    2 Chron. 28:3 (child sacrifice);
    2 Chron. 33:2 (idolatry);
    2 Chron. 34:33, 36:8, and 36:14 (general). (Ezra 9:1, 9:11, and 9:14 use the word in exactly the same way.)

    In all these cases, toevah refers to a foreign cultic behavior wrongly practiced by Israelites and Israelite kings.

    And likewise, the prophet Ezekiel uses the term toevah a record-setting 39 times to refer to idolatry (Ez. 5:11, 6:9, 6:11, 7:20, 14:6, 20:7-8, 22:2, 44:6-7, 44:13), usury (Ez. 18:13), haughtiness and pride (Ez. 16:47-50; the “Sin of Sodom”—more on that in a future article), heterosexual adultery (Ez. 22:11, 33:26), and violence (Ez. 33:26), as well as a general term for foreign acts (Ez. 16:51) or transgression, often in a cultic context (Ez. 5:9, 7:3-4, 7:8-9, 9:4, 11:18, 11:21, 12:16, 16:2, 16:43, 18:24, 20:4, 33:29, 36:31).

    In one extended passage (Ez. 8:1-18), Ezekiel is taken on a visionary tour of toevot, all of which have to do with idolatry and each, Ezekiel says, is worse than the previous one, beginning with an image on the door of the gate of Jerusalem, to idols and imagery in a house of worship, to women weeping for the god Tammuz,* to men worshipping the sun within the Temple itself. This extended passage, with six mentions of toevah, links the term in every instance with avodah zara, or idolatry.

    In five instances, Ezekiel mentions toevah together with both idolatry and zimah or znut, “whoredom” (Ez. 16:22, 16:36, 16:58, 23:26, 43:8), strongly showing that the nature of sexual toevah is not mere lewdness, and certainly not loving intimate expression, but sexuality in a pagan cultic context.

    Now, so far, it is unclear whether a toevah is detestable because it is foreign, or foreign because it is detestable. This question is resolved elsewhere in the Bible, because Israelites are not the only ones with toevot. There are several examples of things which are toevah for Egyptians but perfectly acceptable for Israelites.

    Genesis 43:32 states that eating with Israelites is toevah for Egyptians. Gen. 43:34 states that shepherds are toevah to Egyptians—the sons of Israel are themselves shepherds. In Exodus 8:22, Moses describes Israelite sacrifices as being toevat mitzrayim (toevah of Egypt), although obviously Israelite ritual is not an objective “abomination.” If toevah means abomination, then eating with shepherds, eating with Israelites, and Israelite sacrifices themselves must be abominable! Since this clearly is not the case, toevah cannot mean “abomination” in any ontological sense—it must be a relative quality.

    Toevah can also mean other things. It can refer to ritual imperfection: Deut. 17:1 uses it to refer to the sacrifice of a blemished animal, and Deut. 19:19 bans as toevah sacrifices bought through prostitution or “the price of a dog.” Deut. 22:5 calls crossdressing a toevah (incidentally, in Orthodox Jewish law, this includes women wearing pants). Remarriage (i.e. of the same two parties) is toevah according to Deut. 24:4. The sole ethical use of the term in the Torah is in Deut. 25:16, in which the use of unequal weights and measures is called toevah.

    In the Book of Proverbs (which comes late in the Bible but which scholars believe to have been composed prior to the Deuteronomic and Levitical material), toevah is used twenty-one times to refer to various ethical failings, including the ways, thoughts, prayers and sacrifices of the wicked (Prov. 3:32, 15:8-9, 15:26, 16:12, 21:27, 28:9), pride (Prov. 6:16, 16:5), evil speech (Prov. 8:7), false weights (Prov. 11:1, 20:10, 20:23), devious heartedness (Prov. 11:20), lying (Prov. 12:22, 26:25), scoffing (Prov. 24:9), justifying the wicked and defaming the righteous (Prov. 17:15). Interestingly, Proverbs 13:19 says that “to turn from evil is toevah to fools,” again suggesting that toevah is something relative in nature. Similarly, Prov. 29:27 says poetically: “An unjust man is toevah to the righteous, and the straightforward man is toevah to the wicked.”

    Finally, other books of the Bible adapt the meaning of toevah in accord with their overall literary agendas. Isaiah uses it to refer to the sacrifices of hypocrites (1:13, 44:19), as a taunt against earthly power (41:14), and idolatry (66:3). Jeremiah associates toevah with idolatry (Jer. 2:7, 7:10, 32:35) and unspecified transgression (Jer. 6:15, 8:12, 44:22). Malachi (2:11) uses it to refer to the Israelites’ having “married the daughter of a foreign god.” And Psalm 88:9 poetically uses the term to refer to being alienated from one’s friend: “You have taken me far from my acquaintance; made me a toevah to him, put away, and I cannot come out.”

    Even these variant uses, in most cases, point to the nature of toevah as something foreign or, more generally, something which is or ought to be far away from oneself. Proverbs’ use of toevah is the exception, rather than the rule; in the overwhelming majority of cases, toevah has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with cultic behavior, idolatry, and foreign ritual. However we may understand this type of transgression, it is certainly not “abomination” in the modern sense.

    Indeed, “abomination” itself is an inexact and extremely poor translation, used by the King James and other biblical translations for multiple terms. The KJV uses the word twenty-six times to refer to sheketz, an analogous term to toevah which refers usually to idolatry and occasionally to other taboos such as forbidden animals (Lev. 11:10-13). Likewise, Leviticus 7:18 describes leftover sacrificial meat as pigul—but King James again says “abomination.” And 1 Samuel 13:4, speaking of King Saul and the Philistines, uses the term nivash, yet again rendered as “abomination.” And so on, including 1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13, Isaiah 66:17, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11 (sheketz), and many more.

    The KJV even uses “abomination” six times in translation of New Testament texts (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 16:15, and Revelation 17:4-5, 21:27). All these biblical terms refer to different violations, yet the umbrella term “abomination” eludes any distinction between them. As a result, the KJV lists exactly 150 occurrences of the term “abomination,” though only 103 of them translate toevah.

    Now, if by “abomination,” the King James means a cultural prohibition—something which a particular culture abhors but another culture enjoys—then the term makes sense. But in common parlance, the term has come to mean much more than that. Today, it connotes something horrible, something contrary to the order of nature itself, or God’s plan, or the institution of the family, or whatever. It is this malleability of meaning, and its close association with disgust, that makes “abomination” a particularly abominable word to use. The term implies that homosexuality has no place under the sun (despite its presence in over 1,500 animal species), and that it is an abomination against the Divine order itself.

    Christians who want to be true to the original spoken Word should stop using the word “abomination” to refer to toevah. The word plays into the hands of fundamentalists on the one hand, and anti-religious zealots on the other, both of whom want to depict the Bible as virulently and centrally concerned with the “unnatural” acts of gays and lesbians. In fact, toevah is mostly about idolatry, and male homosexual behavior is only as abominable as remarriage or not keeping kosher, and only within specific situations. Whenever we use the word “abomination” we are perpetuating the misunderstanding of biblical text and the religious persecution of LGBT people.
    Even though Christians are not bound by Levitical purity laws, here is one that is mistakenly used by many fundamentalist Christians (while they ignore all other Levitical purity laws) to persecute and condemn gay people with:

    Leviticus 20:13

    The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles cannot be supported by the Hebrew text.

    Incorrect translation:

    “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.” (KJV)

    Correct translation:

    “And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them.”

    Below is a direct word by word translation of this verse from Hebrew into English:


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

    (Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

    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 meanslie down. The first letter of the word, y, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translateyishkav 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”

    mishk’vei – This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word ‘of’ between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem(Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk’vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions: Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn’t always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn’t. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of in order for the sentence to make sense in English. The verse so far reads And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of.

    ishah – This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman. “And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman.” Since this sounds awkward in English, we have to rephrase it as “in a woman’s bed.” And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed.

    (Note: The word mishk’vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means “thy father,” and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as “to thy father’s bed.” As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

    to’evah – This is a noun. It has been traditionally translated as abomination, although this is not correct since there are many forms of a to’evah. A more correct word would be ‘taboo’. Without a definite article, it has been translated as ‘an abomination’, but the correct translation would be ‘a taboo’. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this word will come later in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next two words.

    asu – This is a verb. It means make or do. This form is past tense, and translates as they have made or they have done. A subject for the verb is following in the sentence, so the word they can be left out of the translation. In English, word order is usually subject-verb-object, so in order for our translation to make sense, the next word, which is the subject, will need to come before this word and the previous word.

    shneihem – This word is made of two particles combined. First is shnei, which is the construct form of the number two. Because it is construct, we add the English word ofto the translation: Two of. The second particle is hem, which is called a pronominal ending. Depending on context, it translates as they, them or their (all masculine). Put together, this word means two of them, or less awkwardly, both of them. And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo;

    mot – This is a gerund form of the verb to die. It corresponds to our word dying. And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo; dying.

    yumatu – This is a future form of the same verb. It translates as they will be put to death. The phrase dying they will be put to death expresses the certainty of the sentence, and is rendered in some English versions as they will surely die, which is an acceptable translation. And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo; dying they will be put to death,

    d’meihem – This word is made of two particles combined. The first is d’mei, a construct form of the word for blood. Because it is construct, we could insert of after it, but we will see further on that adding of in this case will make the translation awkward. The second particle is the pronominal ending hem, as seen above in shneihem. Put together, this word means blood of them. Since this is awkward, we would translate the word as their blood. “And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo; dying they will be put to death, their blood…”

    Our next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, isand are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context. The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God’s name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don’t use the present tense of the verb to be. Russian, for example, has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can’t even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can’t, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: “And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo; dying they will be put to death, their blood is..”

    bam – This word is a contraction. Unlike English contractions, no apostrophe is needed. It is formed by taking the preposition b, which means in, and which cannot exist as a separate word, and attaching it to the final letter of the pronominal ending hem. The resulting word means in them. As mentioned earlier, Hebrew doesn’t always use prepositions the way we do, and this is one case where English would use a different preposition to express the same concept. We would use on, so we will translate the word as on them: “And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made a taboo; 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 any reason.

    If anyone finds that hard to believe, God also forbid anyone to eat any type of shellfish, octopus or squid, or to wear clothing made of 2 different mixed fibers (such as wool and linen, or polyester and cotton today), and listed such things as ‘abominations’ as well, although the true Hebrew word is ‘Toevah’ which the closest word in English would be ‘taboo’.


  3. lemon sandwich Says:

    Hi there mates, good paragraph and pleasant arguments commented at this place, I
    am really enjoying by these.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. aaglaas Says:

    Thank you!!


  5. SWS Says:

    “Evangelicals” (who I regard as cults), want laws passed that allow them to legally discriminate against LGBT. They want to refuse service, be able to fire from a job, and refuse to rent or sell to LGBT. How, pray tell, will they know if someone is LGBT exactly? How about Evangelicals use a special mark on their, say- hand or forehead– so everyone will know its okay to buy and sell with them? This scenario of stripping a group of its civil rights to appease a fanatical cult reminds me of Revelations– where people will not be able to buy or sell without the mark of the Evangelical Cult aka the beast. Evangelicals, in their fanatical zeal for the rapture (which they erroneously believe they will be scooped up and skip out on all the tribulations to come before Christ returns), are turning themselves into the beast.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: