This is why when people ask me what version of the Bible I read I say as many as I can. There is so much changed with different translations and interpretations. Thank you for putting this out into the world. I did learn something from this video.
If God is real and all knowing and all powerful. Like a G would be and wrote you a love letter. B.asic i.nstructions b.efore l.eaving e.arth would be important. So important to you that once changed you will never see God again and now well we are doomed. We have been destroyed by men with features and ink. They have made the plan of God null and void. Oh my what will God do now that His entire plan has been destroyed and His son hung on a cross and it was for nothing. Don't worry I don't believe that men or the devil can't fool God otherwise He is apparently not God. Uncommon Sense/Out
Yes hello Mr. Atheist sent me and you've got another subscriber! I'd send this to my parents faster than ya could blink if I didn't care about having a place to live.
The person you mentioned who wrote a paper on homosexuality being originally condoned, is he the only person who says this? Does he say how he knows that? Also what about the other laws mentioned in that chp did they also originally say something else? Where can I get a hold of that information. Also what about the other areas of the OT that speak against it, was that part changed also?
This "new discovery" appears to be utter nonsense. It is likely just another closet homosexual's attempt at changing societal perceptions through fraudulent academic inquiry. I highly doubt that any honest research was conducted in the processes of the determination outlined in this video. I don't buy it.
@mandellorian Lmao. I should go to Martin Luther (a defiler of the bible), read his adulterated abomination of a bible, and then I should read the German translation. You're kidding, right? Hahahahahahaha! Don't make me laugh.
@@mikep11218 Martin Luther wrote in German, so you obviously missed the point. That said, there's no reason Martin Luther should be considered any more of an authority than any other translator, and good reason he should be considered less, especially regarding the Old Testament (he was very anti-Semitic).
I'm Jewish, I'm Israeli, I study bible at school for about seven years now, in Hebrew, and you just made me realize the when people say genesis they are not talking about a book from the new testament, but the first book of the bible. In Hebrew we call it Bereshit and I just didn't understand the connection. I'm very smart, I know. Intelligent, too.
I love this video, as a closeted bisexual and a devoted follower of Christ I can appreciate this very much. It is hard for me to come out because of my religion. I used to pray to God to fix me but after watching this I've realized that I've been foolish, God loves me just the way I am no matter who I'm dating!!!!
@@Ghirbo04 You just have to accept the fact that same-sex attraction is intrinsic to some people just like left-handedness is, so what does that mean to you? If you continue to insist that homosexuality is sin then you'll have to say that same-sex attraction is sin too just like that Paul says in Romans 1:26 when he said "For this reason God gave them up to shameful desires." That means you'll have to conclude that Paul was on the same page as Augustine and John Calvin that some are predestined to the infernal place. Or you can reevaluate your opinion on homosexuality, and on the Genesis and Leviticus passages, and on Paul, taking a keen look at the relationships between David and Johnathan, the Centurion and his cherished slave boy, and Jesus and Lazarus/John the beloved disciple, and also at that incident recorded in Mark 14:51-52, where Jesus was caught at 4 AM in a public garden with a nearly naked teenage boy or young man whom the police also tried to arrest. Clearly they were confident that the two were guilty of some homosexual transgression, even if they were confidently wrong.
@@EdwardM-t8p i am a male. i have male friends. i love them very much, i hug them when i meet them and thats good, love is good. however, sexual love or attachment is strictly adressed and condemned bith in the new and old testament. just as jesus loved his disciples and lazarus his friend, i love my own friends and thats what god wants. God created love and the perversion of love as in the practice of homosexuality is a sin and is hated by god. you can choose who you love and hate and i believe in the almighty God who can change any corrupt view that society and corrupt churches put in the back of any man or woman. twisting the bible to make sinful desires non condemnable is evil and i wouldn’t risk anything close to this. i pray the creator of this video, lgbt churches and all people deceived by these lies come to christ -as for the naked child- (who btw wasnt “found alone with jesus”) possibility 1 when jesus was with the aposles the night before dying and the soldiers came, it is believed that by the saying the words “i am” and when pushing the soldiers aside with those words as it is written, the power of his name made a resurrection of one of the graves in the near area as is is discovered that thr ghestimani garden is places above a ancied burial site which would explain the anonimity and burial cloth of the man\child. possibility 2 choice of words in third person that mark used like that some other apostes use like in gospel of john when he refers to himself as the “disciple who jesus loved”
I had to look at Leviticus 18 again after seeing this video. Every single time it mentions a male relative it corrects itself and refers to his wife instead. Even if that female is condemned just one sentence later! 😂
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are _missing_ from the Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls. And the "friendship" between David and Johnathan depicted in 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1 is clearly a homoerotic relationship.
I feel like this can/should be arranged better. It’s missing a clarification of the source material for the statement about the original text condoning homosexuality, and the way the statements are ordered makes it sound like preaching without fully substantiating the conclusions. If possible, I think it would be very worthwhile to redo and reupload this video so it isn’t easily dismissed as armchair criticism.
This actually makes me feel better about myself now... but man do I wish I could show this to me 10 years ago. That poor kid was suicidal with grief over going against God. All because of this scripture (and my conservative family).
I'm sorry you fell for this. In order to say the Bible condoned homosexuality you would have to assume that the Bible was only meant for men and women could just do whatever they want. Do not have sex with your uncle. Is it saying only if you are a man or is it telling women to not have sex with your uncle. Sheesh
@@sirchad9443 The writers of the Bible only wrote for men. Women did not matter - they had little power and were discouraged from education (as Islam still does). The language of the Bible indicates this quite clearly - just have a casual read through some of the early Bible chapters. This attitude to women in most religions still exists.
@@Fomites you have fallen for the atheist communist propaganda . What you said only sounds like it makes sense. You obviously don't know how to read the Bible and can only know how it has been misinterpreted by religious leaders and propagandists.
@@Fomites you already misinterpreted what I said. What is wrong with you to think Muslim woman can do and act however they please takes crazy to a new level. In Islam woman how so many rules put on them. Please do not reply unless you can do it without sounding like a moron again.
[My English version of this may be lousy] A novice (N) is tasked by the monastery elder (E) to make a copy of their monastic order's creed. The novice notices that the book is fairly new. N: Should I verify the copy with the original? E: This copy is the same as the original, as were all the previous copies. N: But what if someone made a mistake? E: ... Fine. It will take a couple of hours, but I should dig up the original. Two hours pass. Four hours pass. The novice decides to check on the elder and finds him crying in the basement. E: It was "celebrate"... not "celibate"... [I am not sure whether the joke can be factually correct, because it assumes Orthodox (lenient) attitude towards marriage of people of the Church, but has an untranslatable English play of words inserted. Perhaps it's British, but I heard it in Russian.]
1. Dershowitz is stating something that is not there, actually was when other interpretations are possible. It could have been understood that not sleeping with male relatives was intended for females, and not sleeping with female relatives was meant for males, or simply that they were ruling out all family relations to the first and second generations removed. Even in your cartoon you have not said ANYTHING to make homosexual relations allowed or "condoned." 2. This is important because we DO have explicit rules for homosexual relations in the Mesopotamian texts of the time. 3. All scholarship has to include the alternate theories and not doing so here suggests silly click bait. 4. As others have said, at least provide some argument about why Jewish priests at some point DID condemn homosexuality. --You should clarify you are simplifying and summarizing ONE article and exactly what that means in scholarship. And you should give a little back story of the author because obviously one suspects a lot of implicit bias in his own mind which we always factor in to analyzing scholarship.
What difference does it make when you see the elephant in the room, which is that the early Hebrews selected your god from a roster of local gods, and customized 'him' to meet their ambitions, one of which was to be proclaimed 'his chosen people', which, to them, gave them license to kill. Another was to have 'his' heavenly sanction on their claim that the land of Canaan belonged to them for all time. They claimed that this 'god' required them to slaughter every inhabitant of a city they had conquered. You know the story. The Pentateuch is horse shit, man. A complete fiction.
You're accusing the author the referenced article of implicit bias whilst overlooking your own which was gifted to you from Paul or an erroneous interpretation of his opinion on homosexuality. He said he was a Pharisee so he could have been like the Rabbis who wrote the Talmud b Sanhedrin 52b which focuses on homosexual intercourse and anal intercourse between two opposite sex partners.
Hi Dr. Josh, Interesting argument. But it will be a tough one to make with most Christians and Jews, who will generally accept the text of the Bible as-is, and resist scholarly efforts to reconstruct or deconstruct it. A stronger argument, I think, is to put the Bible's prohibitions on men having sex with men (it contains no clear statement about women having sex with women) in their cultural context. Essentially all male same-sex sex in the ancient world was of an unequal or outright exploitative nature, of a sort that is generally condemned in liberal societies today as well. Same-sex sex between people of equal status rarely happened, and if it did, it was frowned upon or made illegal even in cultures that were accepting of same-sex sex. The Hebrew word _toebah_ used to condemn men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 carries the connotation of something that is ritually unclean or culturally taboo. The traditional translations of "abominable" or "detestable" don't fully convey the sense of the Hebrew. This also suggests that the prohibition of male same-sex sex in the Torah, which was later echoed in Paul, is based on cultural issues, and should be read in that light. Of course, you're never going to convince Christian fundamentalists. They are blind leaders of the blind. But for Christians and Jews of a more open mindset, this provides a pathway to understanding and even accepting the Bible's prohibition on men having sex with men _in the ways it was commonly practiced in those ancient cultures,_ while also understanding that the Bible is not talking about today's practice of same-sex marriage between men (and women) of equal status.
male-on-female sex in the ancient world was far more exploitative than traditional pederasty and involved the same age gaps and far, far starker power dynamics. so i don't buy those explanations.
@joshridinger3407 There is zero need for that comparison. The context discussed was explicitly restricted to male-male sex, so that information gives no reason to reject the point that was made.
@@joshridinger3407 The idea that male-female sex was "exploitative" is anachronistic in applying today's ideas of gender equality to a time in which gender equality did not exist. Men were considered naturally higher in status than women. A man penetrating a woman was "natural" because the man was of higher status, and the woman of lower status. The problem with male-male sex was that in Israelite society, all men were considered to be of equal status under the law, from king right on down to beggar. The law was God's law, and no man had any higher status than any other man under God's law. This meant that in Israelite society, for a man to penetrate another man was to violate the cultural norm that no man was of higher status than any other man. A man penetrating another man made the one who penetrated of higher status than the one who was penetrated. It reduced the penetrated man to the lower status of a woman, which was considered "unnatural." This, in a nutshell, is why a man penetrating a woman did not violate cultural norms, but a man penetrating another man did. Once again, this applies specifically to Israelite society. Most of the surrounding cultures had no such norm that all men were equal under God's law.
@@leewoofenden "The idea that male-female sex was "exploitative" is anachronistic in applying today's ideas of gender equality to a time in which gender equality did not exist." this is a non-sequitur. it's like claiming that the idea that slavery is exploitative is based on modern ideas about equality. sex was seen as exploitative by nature, and it was a woman's place to be exploited by men, just as it was a slave's place to be exploited by their master. but that wasn't the (whole) reason male-on-male sex was prohibited, because in that case the penetrated man would be seen as a victim of a crime, to be made whole, rather than be executed along with the penetrator. sometimes societies simply acquire taboos that have no further explanation than some sheltered priest's disgust reflex. "The problem with male-male sex was that in Israelite society, all men were considered to be of equal status under the law, from king right on down to beggar." that's not true. in fact that's a blatant contradiction. a king is unequal to a beggar by definition.
@@joshridinger3407 Read the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. You will find references to a man ruling over his wife (as in Genesis 3:16), to a woman calling her husband "my lord" (as in Genesis 18:12), to a wife submitting to her husband (as in Ephesians 5:22), and so on. But you will not find a reference to a husband exploiting his wife. Not from the mouth of God, not from the mouth of a husband, not from the mouth of a wife. That's just not how people in those days thought of the relationship between man and woman. That's the anachronistic part. Some argument could be made that masters exploited their slaves, though even that relationship was not what many people today think of when they think of slaves. Many slaves accepted their status in the culture, and had no interest in changing it. See, for example, Exodus 21:2-6. Some slaves even achieved fairly high status in their culture. Slavery was not all whips and oppression. For the most part, it was simply an accepted part of nearly every culture on the face of the earth until very recent times. Obviously unacceptable by today's standards, but not by the standards of those cultures. However, even if an argument could be made that slavery is inherently exploitative, the idea that husbands exploited their wives in the cultures of the Bible is a modern anachronism that misunderstands the entire nature of the relationship between man and woman in those ancient cultures. Ironically, such a view actually devalues women compared to their actual roles in the Bible. For the most part, people were quite pragmatic about sex. A husband wanted sex with his wife or wives because that's how he sired sons as heirs, not to mention daughters that could fetch a bride price. A wife wanted sex with her husband because bearing sons, and secondarily daughters, was the primary way she gained honor and respect in her community and culture, not to mention having children to care for her in her old age. And there were many other benefits to both father and mother. Read the story in Genesis 29-30 of Leah and Rachel vying with one another for their husband Jacob's sexual favors. That should disabuse any objective person of the notion that women in those days thought of sex as exploitative. Marriage may not have been the equal relationship many people aspire to today. But it wasn't "exploitative." It worked quite well in those cultures, and it was accepted as normal and natural by both men and women. Not understanding this will result in misunderstanding the entire nature of gender relations in the ancient cultures of the Bible. Recognizing that sex was seen as a dominant person penetrating a submissive person is not at all the same as the people of those cultures seeing that relationship as exploitative. In those cultures, men and women were seen as naturally dominant and submissive, respectively, in relation to one another. Both men and women accepted this arrangement without question, and worked within it to achieve their own goals and desires, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so successfully. As an example, consider the story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24 (though it is really the story of Rebekah). While her family dithered and delayed, Rebekah immediately accepted Isaac sight-unseen as her husband. She saw an opportunity to marry a good and wealthy man, and she took it. The subsequent stories of their interactions show that Rebekah was a strong-minded woman very much able to assert her will-for example, in aiding and abetting her favored son Jacob in supplanting Isaac's favored son Esau to become Isaac's primary heir, and ultimately the one through whom the lineage of the biblical Patriarchs would be traced. If anything, in this marriage Rebekah exploited Isaac. But once again, that's just not how people thought of it in those days. Isaac came to accept Jacob as the stronger of his two sons. In the end, he willingly gave him his blessing as the rightful heir to his father Abraham's promise and covenant with God (see Genesis 28:1-4) There are many more instances in the Bible narrative of women and wives asserting their will, and having it accepted by men and husbands. Just one more example: Sarah, Abraham's wife, also flexed her muscle to ensure that her biological son Isaac became Abraham's primary heir, not Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn son. Abraham accepted her will, which was also God's will. (see Genesis 21:1-21). It was the wives who ensured that the biblical Patriarchs would be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not some other possible lineage through Ishmael or Esau. Reducing all of that complexity in biblical gender relations to the relationship between man and woman being "exploitative" is indeed an utterly anachronistic framing of ancient cultures based on modern theories that just don't apply to those cultures. It misses all the richness of women's often decisive position and influence, which starts with Eve herself and continues throughout the entire length of the Bible narrative.
Nothing surprises me with the changing nature of Israelite identity down through the centuries - amazing video guys. Understanding written language forms is difficult when they presented to be read and understood based on 20th/21st century evangelical Christian presuppositions. It's great to have this work be done to clear that away. Thanks for your efforts. :)
I still hold to this. Reading the bible as it is in English misses the meaning of the original, despite the prayerful and scholarly efforts of translators. BUT if you understand biblical Hebrew it can be edifying and instructive to take into account the historical context that the authors were in. Michael Heiser is epic on this principle.
I'm not sure you can say that this passage in bible has been changed as you don't have the original document of Leviticus.....or any. It could have been 'Chinese whispers' when it was copied
Another good video to watch about how the Bible was written and edited through time is Trey the Explainer's "What's the Deal with the Nephilim?" Im glad this topic was covered in the same accuracy as well. This was a great intro to how the Bible was really written.
I understand your point, and I do agree that the Old Testament has been edited, but I believe your conclusion here bypasses another potential solution. When the law says, "You can have sex with women, but not *these* women," could it not be that it's talking to men? And when it says, "You can have sex with men, but not *these* men," could it not be that it's talking to women? Why automatically assume that these are same-sex references? We see a number of heterosexual unions in the Pentateuch, including adulterous and incestuous situations, but we never see homosexual unions among any named persons. As I recall, prior to Leviticus, we only have one situation where homosexuality is mentioned, and even then only obliquely (the men of Sodom). The conclusion you advocate here would also seem to be negated by the provision "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman," or do you feel that this was a later edit as well?
hello! im sorry if by any means i come off as a bother but could you please give me the sources on the claim that leviticus has been changed? id really like to have them for a document im making
How does that condone homosexuality? This is equivalent to saying to not murder your mother intrinsically means that you can murder anyone else. Just because they didn't stipulate everything under the sun doesn't mean it is permitted.
@@DigitalHammurabi I do not see how you apparently have proven that the bible condoned homosexuality, even though that is what you plainly state in your video.
A former Religion teacher of mine (our Religion lessons weren't ever "This is how it is", more "this is how the bible said it, what do you say? Is this up to date?") explained the leviticus part like this: The original hebrew word for "woman" could also be used as "wife". And the verse is likely about military rules from the wording, so basically it's "Even if you are in war and could have sex with one of the other soldiers to relieve urges, don't. You would cheat on your wife, and you shouldn't do that."
there is no concept of cheating on your wife in the old tstament. adultery is never an offense against a woman, it is an offense against her husband or betrothed.
@@eoincampbell1584 that doesn't really make sense. boys in traditioal pederastic relationships were the same age as girls when they were "ideally" married off, and both participants in the act are condemned, so it's not about protecting the supposed underage boy.
@@joshridinger3407 I didn't say it was about protecting the boy. It just shows that the condemnation in the bible may have specifically been a condemnation of pederastic relationships, rather than all homosexuality between men. Girls *were* carted off at young ages, but it's fully possible this was simply a double standard. It's also important to note that a lot of Leviticus' rules are essentially distinctions between the Hebrew culture and nearby enemies: *They* worship animal idols, *they* eat these kinds of foods, *they* wear clothes of mixed fabrics, *they* practice pederasty, *they* have tatoos, *they* wear their hair like this; so *we* don't do any of that.
What fact? he has given no evidence apart from articles from some guy who again has no evidence. People will do anything to cover up the fucked up shit that is in the bible. It condemns homosexuality clear as day. You are all deluded and desperate, can't face the truth so shit like this gets floated about. So sad
I actually watched this because I disagree with the premise of the vid, but I was looking to see if maybe you could convince me the other way around. And Im sorry to be a stickler, but Im really not convinced. You say that the Bible originally condoned homosexuality, but how could you possibly know that. Is there an original print version that exists? because then you could mention that. Otherwise it just seems like you are saying this as fact when I really see nothing to back it up. Im not a religious scholar in any sense, Im just learning about all of this right now, and it just seems like you came to a conclusion without much support. And also besides all of that, it seems like original text of the old testament would matter only to Jewish people, because for Christians Jesus is the final word. For example when in Mark 7 Jesus proclaimed "all foods clean" therefore nullifying Leviticus 11. In the same way, even if Leviticus 18-22 were void and null per your argument, the subject is reviewed again multiple times throughout the Bible, including in Romans 1, where homosexual intercourse is described as "unnatural" and a "shameless act". To me it just seems like you either believe in the Bible as God's word and must accept that in it homosexuality is condemned or not believe it at all. I feel like the arguments you present are just trying to avoid the inevitable and beat around the bush. I am just beginning to explore Christianity and its critics though, so I highly appreciate the input from the video. Gives me a lot to think about.
I think the "don't sleep with your father and uncle" isn't reason enough to say that the verse is meant to include everyone else. Its like saying "saying I love you to your sister means you hate everyone else."
So why didn’t he show the changes made? He shows the passage we now see but doesn’t show the “original” passage…why? Because no changes were made. Leviticus isn’t the only mention of homosexuality in the Bible. It’s also in Deuteronomy 22:5, Romans 1:26-33 and Corinthians 6:9-11. The Bible has not changed. People are trying to make it change to match their own lives. If you want to know the truth read the Bible…don’t listen to man. The back of the Bible has a section of subjects that will take you right to where you want to go if you only want to see a specific subject. Don’t just listen to people…read and decide for yourself. You need to investigate and have discernment in all things biblical.. Your life is at stake.
How is saying 'don't have sex with your uncle' equivalent to saying 'it’s okay to have sex with people of the same gender'? That's like saying that ' you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife' is equivalent to condoning coveting the wives of people who are not your neighbours? Maybe they updated the text to get rid of such dodgy loopholes of interpretation rather than to change the meaning?
Excellent! Though I never had the proof (or the knowledge of the language used), I always felt there was something amiss in the Pentateuch, beyond the obvious contradictions (eg two "wives" for Adam, one of whom is quickly forgotten, then generally ignored even by fundies - and whom he didn't _actually_ marry in the way modern people insist is *the* correct way [with a ceremony and oaths sworn], without any evidence to support their point). I think it was because of the well-known contradictions, such as the above, that I deeply suspected there to be more which were not spoken about because they are either unknown due to the sort of outright change of words as in this video, or were deemed to be "harmless". The latter, of course, may have been harmless in and of themselves, but they did (and still do) allow preachers of the Abrahamic religions to pick and choose their own paths through the texts, thereby encouraging, and occasionally causing, the schisms in all three religions. Essentially, they have potentially been the foundation for the deaths and persecutions of countless millions over the centuries. In this case, who can measure the harm done to LGBTQ+ people worldwide and for at least 2 millennia. The thought of that is just gut-wrenchingly horrific. As in Lynne Truss's _Eats Shoots and Leaves_ (a hilarious but also accurate book of points in grammar, the heading using the punchline of the old joke about a hungry, randy and murderous panda), even something as apparently innocuous as a missed comma can cause a lot of trouble! It acts as a reminder that there really isn't any mistake in written language which doesn't have the potential to cause, at the very least, red faces 😳 😁. This channel is criminally undersubscribed. Going to share this link with my handful of Twitter pals and will ask them to share it with theirs. I only hope we can get some more people who are missing out on very fascinating information.
Friends, it makes no sense to use the Bible as a guidebook. It's a collection of historical texts that come from different places and times and have been edited, revised and translated.
Indeed, which is why we have a series of videos explaining textual criticism, and various others looking at the Bible from an academic, rather than faith-based, perspective.
Hi, I have a question, Is it true that there is/was a homosexual relationship in the Bible? I read this in some video's comment section, but I deleted the screenshots that I took (for some reason). I would be very grateful if you could answer this question. Thanks
Hi Laura! David and Jonathan are described with language that is indicative of something more than just “good friends” :-) Thomas Romer wrote an article on this last year (Homosexuality and the Hebrew Bible) college-de-france.academia.edu/ThomasRömer Hope that helps!
Umm... So the thing that I find in your argument is that you're 'telling ' us what Hebrew Bible said. Not presenting any proof of it whatsoever, nor mentioning the precise Hebrew words that condoned homosexuality. Proof as for precise or key words that would add more fundament; I understand that maybe a whole verse would not be practical for a RU-vid video but words wouldn't do any wrong. It hears as if summarizing or wrapping up what the Hebrew text said and then proceeding to tell us that the Bible Hebrew text said x or y thing. This is an opinion although meant not to be offensive in any way or rude man -- just wanted to clarify before y'all jump on me
You’re quite correct, and thank you for the comment, but This video is really only intended to provide a summary of Dr. Dershowitz’s article on the subject. The link to the paper should be in the description if you’d like to read it yourself 😁 If we ever do a general video on homosexuality and the Bible then we’ll endeavor to include that linguistic information!
That's why I don't trust the Bible - it was rewritten and translated over and over ...there are contradictions and so on. I seek God in my heart and I believe that LOVE is not a sin and never will be !
It might be a worthwhile exercise to engage with Dr. Dershowitz's article directly; it seems like you are dismissing his argument out of hand.@@micahhenley589
the sad part is in the bible when jesus mentioned that god only meant for man to be with woman and thats the only marriage that exists under the eyes if god.
Thank you very much. i'm bisexual and proud. my dad always tells me it's a sin but i know it's not a choice or sin. thank you again for speaking the truth god bless you and amen.... ❤🙌
Look into Paul the False Apostle. He wrote 13 books to control the church after the time of Jesus. And if you read the book of Jeremiah it is clear the Jews were not following God's law from the time they left Egypt. Here lies the false "dog"ma dog is backward from god and god made clear the jews and their vain law was not his and they went backwards and not forwards.
Excuse me Sir, Do you have and old manuscripts showing textual variants on the passage? Theories without evidence are like ideas without any basis. I don't see any condoning of homosexuality. This sounds like a whole load of propaganda. The issue on authorship was viewed differently in the ancient time. Eg, A student of teachers X can write about the teacher but attribute it to the teacher. Even when the teacher actually wrote something down, it still had to be compiled and edited in a sensible flow...
In the ancient world, there was a common practice of abandoning unwanted infants for people who did want them to pick them up at the city gates. St. Clement of Alexandria frowned on the practice. The reason: A man could abandon an infant. In 15 or so years, he could visit a brothel and have sex (without knowing it) with his daughter or son. St. Clement's issue wasn't with prostitution or gay sex. His issue was incest.
The reference to homosexuality is not mentioned with the list of family sexual relationships. How do you answer that? And the is repeated in chapter 20.
I tried this and was told that today’s “version” of god’s perfect word is what counts. Do they even listen to what they say? Only if it fits. The delusion is all encompassing.
Biblical scholar IDAN Dershowitz is from the University of Potsdam. Legal scholar ALAN Dershowitz is from Harvard University. PS: Thanks for the links!
The Bible condoned homosexuality because there is actually a gay couple in the bible, David and Jonathan, and the way their relationship is told in the Bible sounds like it was just more than just friendship. 1 Samuel 18:1 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. 2 Samuel 1:26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women."
Hm, i am not here from mr atheist, i decided i wanted to know stuff about Akkadian and Sumerian at like... 1AM and you were recommended. Best 1AM decision ever
I would, of course, argue that I am not. However, I would be interested in the critiques that you have with the arguments that Dr. Dershowitz has made.
SJ Thomason I doubt either of us would be equipped (within a reasonable amount of time) to effectively argue for or against the rather technical arguments. I would love to have Dr. Dershowitz come on and discuss the article, but he is extremely busy, which is understandable.
@@DigitalHammurabi Let me be sure I'm correctly understanding your view on this position. Are you saying that because the Bible authors didn't originally list all of the groupings of people with whom people are permitted to have sex - that they were saying everything goes outside of incest? For example, in those verses you listed, I didn't see mention of prostitutes or bestiality. Does that mean those were also "good to go?"
I fail to see how the original text condones homosexuality. Yes, it fails to specifically condemn it, but so do most other passages.. It's almost as if you're claiming that anything not specifically forbidden is officially condoned.
Your argument is flawed. Your saying that by condemning Y then X is condoned. Or, by not explicitly condemning X then X is condoned. Neither of these points is valid and therefore weakens your argument. Your evidence only shows that X is not addressed. The fact that X is not addressed is a valid point in that it implies that X was not an issue worth including. That is the proper basis of your argument. Personally, I dismiss the bible outright. I don't see any point in debating what a work of fiction does or doesn't say. Mr. Atheist sent me.
Thank you for the input! I think the argument is more complex than that, but it is hard to put the subtleties in a short video. We are really happy to have you with us!!
@@DigitalHammurabi No doubt. Just advising caution. Your opponents will attack every little detail you present if you give them a chance. Keep up the fight.
+Ralph Johnson I agree. Maybe this video didn't represent the original argument all that well, I haven't looked into it so I can't say. But going with what is presented here, indeed the conclusion that the bible condoned homosexuality originally because it was not specific about not doing so, would be a logical fallacy. If a manufacturer of microwave ovens puts in it's operation manual that you should not put dogs into it to dry them, but says nothing about cats, It doesn't logically follow that it's fine to put cats in it. That's the type of fallacy being made here.
Except that No You must not לֹ֥א (lō) Adverb - Negative particle Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no lie תִשְׁכַּ֖ב (ṯiš·kaḇ) Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular with וְאֶ֨ת־ (wə·’eṯ-) Conjunctive waw | Preposition a man זָכָ֔ר (zā·ḵār) Noun - masculine singular as with מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י (miš·kə·ḇê) Noun - masculine plural construct a woman; אִשָּׁ֑ה (’iš·šāh) Noun - feminine singular Strong's Hebrew 802: Woman, wife, female that הִֽוא׃ (hî) Pronoun - third person feminine singular [is] an abomination. תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) Noun - feminine singular As a person who likes history I debuk any claim athiest or thiest that is historicaly incurrate Since the complete Leviticus of 450 bc it's even by 540 bc I wonder why he says many years as the book of Leviticus was not completed in the time of Moses jewsih tradition was oral for most part ( So Much so that Even the common Jew memorized whole chapters) and there are a few passages in paypurs But not even one * credited * historian agrees that Leviticus 18:22 was altered We like facts don't we ? So .... Where is it Or is this just speculation? Like i said I could be wrong But still it's like muslims saying the gospel has been corrputed Or young Earth creationist saying the Earth is 6000 year's old Both untrue on Is big a historical inaccuracie And the other a dumb anti paleontology or geology belief Sadly the historical data does not agree with your video speculation but oh well it was still interesting I guess
"For this cause God gave them up unto *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 another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." --Romans 1
What we know about ancient Hebrew primarily comes from the Bible. The argument that you could tell when something was changed just because you think the grammar is wordy is the worst argument ever. You have not one manuscript variant. Why would any of this matter if you believe Leviticus wasn't written by Moses, anyway?
We’re very happy to have you, and I’m glad that the video is helpful ☺️ I find that so much of the Bible that is used to attack other people is used dishonestly or in ignorance...I personally don’t think the Bible should be used to dictate modern life, but hopefully work like this will help others who see the Bible in a different light to me.
I can’t remember where but I remember reading an article by a professor in ethics and something about religion and it said that gay sex was not ‘I love you’ back then, it was ‘I own you’.
Moses speaking to Israel: וְאֶ֙ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא (Lev18:22) 'You (men implied) shall not lie down with a man as with a woman...that is an *abomination" So unless you want to say that Moses is commanding all the men of Israel not to lie with ANY woman this sounds like a condemnation. Sort of like saying that: "Stop Children Crossing" means stop all the children from crossing the road.* *But the traditional view makes a GREAT TARGET for Ph.D. students to refute!* Nobody would give a Ph.D. for DEFENDING this position...would they! [I'm not a scholar or anything but I can read Hebrew]
Watch the video again and listen. That part was not in the earliest versions. Some prude added it later on. (I also doubt that Mr. D. Hammurabi would agree with most scholars that Moses was not a real person, but that's another topic.)
Wouldn't 'be fruitful and multiply' conflict with the original message found in Leviticus then? Or do you believe that was added when the Leviticus alterations took place?
According to the story that developed there were only two people on the planet at that time, begging many questions such as: where did Cain get his wife?
I'm confused, didn't you say "...all this video is intended to do is present a recent academic argument on the subject..." From the structure of this (summary) video it appears you are endorsing this view. Can you clarify? Shalom/Peace
No he isn’t. He couldn’t even show the change he states happened. People just WANT him to be right….doesn’t mean it is. There are other passages to explain.
