The Bible prohibits anal intercourse, not homosexuality

submitted by Vulptex from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Perhaps anal sex with a woman wasn't really thought of. Notice how lesbian relations aren't mentioned at all.

Yes that's an interesting point and one I hadn't thought about before, but I do think it strange they did not use the word sodomy, despite using that word specifically in many other places in the bible.

An interesting discussion on the interpretation nonetheless

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sodomy is an archaic English translation of various words of sexual immorality. It technically means anal or oral sex. How that came to be probably has to do with the incident where the Sodomites tried to rape angels. Reading the actual story makes it clear that there was a lot more to it than "Oh no they like guys!". And they probably had other motives than sexual pleasure, there's no way they were ALL naturally gay.

Leviticus 18:22 rarely uses sodomy because it's not worded that way. The surrounding verses regulate sexual behavior in various ways, with completely forbidden ones being "lying fleshly with". But the one about males with males only speaks of lying as a woman, not all lying. Also, you have to consider, Bible translations are almost always made by Christian organizations with a theological agenda to push. This line is not mistranslated per se, but the translators word it in such a way, "as with a woman", that it's too vague to see that the prohibition is restricted to lying as a woman only. Another good example is in Jeremiah 7, where God denies ever giving commandments to make animal sacrifices or burn people alive as punishment. In the next chapter, he complains in verse 8 about the "lying pen of scribes". Since this is absolutely damning to the doctrine of inerrancy, most translations alter the line in chapter 7 to make God say instead that he did not only give commandments for animal sacrifices. Then they are free to reinterpret Jeremiah 8:8 as referring to external commentaries or the interpretation of the law.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks Vulptex, appreciate the info on the translations, these word choices matter when trying to read between the lines of the text. It seems like this wording I'm splitting hairs about is more an artifact of the translation than I realized, and yeah the definition of sodomy is somewhat more unclear than I thought anyway. It's hard to figure out exactly what these authors intended to say thousands of years and some translating later

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh, forgot to ask. Is there any particular translation of the Bible that you think is more faithful than the others? Reading Hebrew isn't really something I can do

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The academic ones usually have less bias. But even they still have bias. And sometimes you have to pick an interpretation, because the original language could mean multiple things in a way that's impossible to express in English.

You may want to check out Marcion's Bible too. An examination of the evidence shows that his came before ours. The differences don't have much connection to his theology. Be mindful when something doesn't seem right, or the language doesn't seem like the author's.

I would try using an interlinear, but check the words to make sure even the interlinear isn't leading you astray. For example in Leviticus 18:22 many of them still change "lyings of" to "as with". You won't realize it until you look up the actual word. If you're on a website you can probably click on it. This is a pretty deep rabbit hole.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another common mistranslation is 1 Corinthians 11:16, which in regard to women wearing head coverings says "we have no such practice", but most translations change it to "we have no other practice".