Someone please clarify.

[Dan]

This line from Leviticus, it's about homosexuality, what exactly is it saying?

Leviticus 18:22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "

Now tell me, by the wording, it sounds like God is not condemning homosexuals (in the sense that if you are attracted to men, you're evil), but is condemning the act of sex between two men or two women.

Does this mean homosexuals who do not have sexual relations, but still do other things couples do (exempting holy matrimony, which is reserved for heterosexual relationships only), are innocent?

[jerickson314]

The Leviticus passage isn't all the Bible has to say on the topic. See Romans 1:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)

This verse says that "passions" or something similar (depending on the translation) are wrong in a homosexual context. Therefore, more than just the act of sex would be wrong.

I do not believe that attractions themselves are sinful, though. Attractions are temptations, not sin. Although we do not have good evidence that homosexual attraction is genetic, we do have evidence that it is not a conscious, willful decision. People don't really seem to be able to help it, at least not directly and immediately.

However, this Romans passage clearly states that kindling the attractions to be something more than just that - attractions - is wrong. Lust, essentially, is wrong. It is the same as with heterosexual relationships. See the gospel of Matthew:

but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. (WEB)

It is wrong to lust after anyone who is not your spouse, regardless of which sex he or she is.

Fortunately Christ's sacrifice on the cross bought salvation for everyone who lusts, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

What constitutes lust by the way?

I think the action is wrong, but the leaning towards the action might not be wrong. For example, what's wrong with an alcoholic is not that he has a likelyhood of getting drunk, it's that he does actually get drunk.

[jerickson314]

What constitutes lust by the way?

First of all, I want to say that lust is NOT the same thing as attraction. Seeing someone of either sex and finding them to be attractive is not lust. However, gazing at the person, fantasizing, mentally undressing, etc. constitute lust.

It's like Martin Luther's famous quote which states, "I can’t stop the birds from flying over my head, but I can keep them from building a nest in my hair!" Likewise, fleeting thoughts you can't control aren't sinful. However, dwelling on them and kindling them is sinful.

[XenonII]

The Leviticus passage isn't all the Bible has to say on the topic.

We are not under the laws of Leviticus they were specifically for the jews and part of the old convenant that was superceded with the new with the coming of Christ so I don't think we have to worry about what Leviticus (a sexist homophobe by the way) has to say.

Also it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to lay down in the same way as a woman because men do not have vaginas. The passage seems to be against bisexuality, gay men don't usually also lie down with women aswell as men (unless because of feeling pressurised to by society). The original meaning of the passage is pretty dubious anyway and is often taken out of context.

If we were still under the laws of Leviticus today we would have to put men that have sex with men to death, we couldn't shave our faces, or wear clothes made of two materials, we would have to stone to death children that are disobedient to their parents and there all sorts of other wacky laws we would have to adhere to.

Leviticus also says if you break any of its laws you are guilty of breaking the lot! I think the point here is this being another example of "All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God" (Can't remember off the top of my head what verse that is right now).

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)

This verse says that "passions" or something similar (depending on the translation) are wrong in a homosexual context. Therefore, more than just the act of sex would be wrong.

Is this even talking about homosexuals though let alone all homosexuals? People being straight and then turning gay doesn't sound like real homosexuals to me and so its not suprising there "passions" are considered unnatural because they weren't that way to begin with where as a gay is usually that way from as far back as they could remember. If its a sin then the sex and the lusting would be wrong and not the mere same sex attaction.

I do not believe that attractions themselves are sinful, though. Attractions are temptations, not sin. Although we do not have good evidence that homosexual attraction is genetic, we do have evidence that it is not a conscious, willful decision. People don't really seem to be able to help it, at least not directly and immediately.

We don't have ANY evidence that heterosexuality is genetic either. And thats right the choice is in the behaviour and not the feelings to engage in that behaviour to begin with.

but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. (WEB)

It is wrong to lust after anyone who is not your spouse, regardless of which sex he or she is.

This passage says a MAN lusting after a WOMAN though not any other combination.

Fortunately Christ's sacrifice on the cross bought salvation for everyone who lusts, regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual!

So true and so cool! The miraclous free gift of salvation is open to be received by all.

[ray]

You say "I don't think we have to worry about what Leviticus (a sexist homophobe by the way) has to say". Leviticus is not a person, it is the name of the book. Moses wrote it and he was recording the words God gave him. So I assume you are saying both Moses and God are both sexist and afraid of homosexuals?

Ray

[jerickson314]

The Leviticus passage isn't all the Bible has to say on the topic.

We are not under the laws of Leviticus they were specifically for the jews and part of the old convenant that was superceded with the new with the coming of Christ so I don't think we have to worry about what Leviticus (a sexist homophobe by the way) has to say.

Leviticus was a sexist homophobe? There was no such man as Leviticus. The book of Leviticus was written by Moses.

Also it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to lay down in the same way as a woman because men do not have vaginas. The passage seems to be against bisexuality, gay men don't usually also lie down with women aswell as men (unless because of feeling pressurised to by society). The original meaning of the passage is pretty dubious anyway and is often taken out of context.

No, I think your interpretation (though I have seen it before) is over-literalistic and silly. The fact that your interpretation means it is describing something "impossible" is quite a big hint that your interpretation is wrong. It is a reference to men having sex with men by some means. I don't really see how it could refer to anything more. And the distinction between homo/hetero/bi didn't really appear until like the 1700s or 1800s. (As in, people didn't think of it along those terms before then.)

If we were still under the laws of Leviticus today we would have to put men that have sex with men to death, we couldn't shave our faces, or wear clothes made of two materials, we would have to stone to death children that are disobedient to their parents and there all sorts of other wacky laws we would have to adhere to.

See here and here.

Also note that what I said was that there are more references to homosexuality than just Leviticus.

Leviticus also says if you break any of its laws you are guilty of breaking the lot!

No, that's a New Testament reference to the law, including Leviticus. Still valid, of course.

I think the point here is this being another example of "All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God" (Can't remember off the top of my head what verse that is right now).

Certainly true.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)

This verse says that "passions" or something similar (depending on the translation) are wrong in a homosexual context. Therefore, more than just the act of sex would be wrong.

Is this even talking about homosexuals though let alone all homosexuals? People being straight and then turning gay doesn't sound like real homosexuals to me and so its not suprising there "passions" are considered unnatural because they weren't that way to begin with where as a gay is usually that way from as far back as they could remember.

As I said before, the concept of a person being "homosexual" or "bisexual" wasn't conceived until recent centuries, long after the Romans passage was written. Paul is all-out condemning homosexual behavior and lust, no matter who is doing it.

If its a sin then the sex and the lusting would be wrong and not the mere same sex attaction.

I agree.

I do not believe that attractions themselves are sinful, though. Attractions are temptations, not sin. Although we do not have good evidence that homosexual attraction is genetic, we do have evidence that it is not a conscious, willful decision. People don't really seem to be able to help it, at least not directly and immediately.

We don't have ANY evidence that heterosexuality is genetic either.

I would disagree here. Heterosexuality is the normal genetic function behind reproduction. Sex chromosomes exist, and hormones are obviously coded for in DNA. It's just that homosexual attractions seem to develop when something goes wrong, usually from environmental factors.

And thats right the choice is in the behaviour and not the feelings to engage in that behaviour to begin with.

That's generally true, although there is evidence that it is possible for some at least to change their attractions. LittleShepherd himself did. However, I doubt many people chose to begin feeling attractions.

but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. (WEB)

It is wrong to lust after anyone who is not your spouse, regardless of which sex he or she is.

This passage says a MAN lusting after a WOMAN though not any other combination.

Yes, literally. However, a little exegesis shows that he was talking about the sins of the mind that precede physical sin. It is a reasonable inference to apply this passage to any sexual lust.

[XenonII]

You say "I don't think we have to worry about what Leviticus (a sexist homophobe by the way) has to say". Leviticus is not a person, it is the name of the book. Moses wrote it and he was recording the words God gave him. So I assume you are saying both Moses and God are both sexist and afraid of homosexuals?

Ray

Not at all thats not what i'm saying and sorry about that a website I saw a long time ago said leviticus was a person, woops lol. God loves everyone just not what some people do... The point is we, as Christians, are not required to follow the laws of leviticus today as these laws were layed out for ancient hebrews.

[XenonII]

No, I think your interpretation (though I have seen it before) is over-literalistic and silly. The fact that your interpretation means it is describing something "impossible" is quite a big hint that your interpretation is wrong. It is a reference to men having sex with men by some means. I don't really see how it could refer to anything more. And the distinction between homo/hetero/bi didn't really appear until like the 1700s or 1800s. (As in, people didn't think of it along those terms before then.)

Ok, If you don't like that interpretation (and I agree it is a bit frivolous) what about this one? This one seems to be a lot more credible (this is from the religioustolerance.org website which looks at various issues from both a conservative and liberal perspective):

Leviticus 18:22 - King James' Version (KJV)

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They "confuse" the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden." (Although this could be a reference to just homosexual behaviour, of course).
On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation! Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

1. The Net Bible® (NB) translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
2. An alternate translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.

Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:
All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or (NO!)
All sexual behavior between two men, or (NO!)
Only anal sex between two men, or (UNLIKELY)
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or (PROBABLY)
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed? (POSSIBLY)

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior. (IE if they are anti gay they will read their prejiduces into the text sadly).

English translations of this verse:

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit! If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, (due to prevaling sexist homophobic attitudes within society) their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, (no matter how poorly translated these may be) unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian liberals or Jews.

The word "homosexual" was invented in 1891 so how can it appear in the Bible? There was NO Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text. (too true)

Various Interpretations of this verse include:

This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.

Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches: This is a conservative Christian denomination with a special outreach to gays and lesbians. They enlarged on the condemnation of the ritual uncleanness of homosexual sexual behavior in Pagan temples: "The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were [considered] property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of God. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation.

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

Author Jacob Milgrom suggests that the two passages do not prohibit homosexual behavior generally, but only:
for ancient Israelites, or to inhabitants of Israel, and
who are engaging in anal intercourse, and
who are men, and
who are of the same kinship connections that would prohibit heterosexual relations.

Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man.

"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman." (Civil Unions for example).

"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness.

He concludes that if this passage condemns some forms of homosexual behavior, it may refer only to the ancient Israelites, not to North America today. Perhaps: "at one time of human and Jewish history the path avoided gay male sexuality, and at a later time this avoidance might be null and void? Can the circle of the beloved community widen as we mature?"

Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.

A second Jewish writer, Rabbi Gershon Caudill, is: "not convinced that the biblical passages (here in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13) refer to homosexual activity that is within a monogamous, stable, and loving relationship." He suggests that the passages refer to sexual promiscuity, not to homosexual activity within a committed relationship: 7
bullet He notes that Leviticus 18:22 is located in a section of Leviticus that deals with incest and bestiality.
bullet It is not usual for a gay man to have sex with another man as if he the latter were a woman. If he were to do so, then he would be pretending that he was with a woman and not with another man. Thus, he would not be in a homosexual relationship at all. The passage actually refers to a heterosexual male who is forcing himself to fantasize that he is having sex with a woman in order to be able to complete the act. In modern terms, this would be considered as a male heterosexual violating his own sexual orientation.
bullet At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.

No, that's a New Testament reference to the law, including Leviticus. Still valid, of course.

Oh yeah of course..how silly of me. .Are laws of leviticus are still valid or not? NO! The only one i've ever heard so called "Christians" clamoring for is the one to put 'gays' to death.

As I said before, the concept of a person being "homosexual" or "bisexual" wasn't conceived until recent centuries, long after the Romans passage was written. Paul is all-out condemning homosexual behavior and lust, no matter who is doing it.

Which shows the ignorance of the original writer concerrning this matter. That wouldn't be the same Paul that was a sexist and a racist would it? But we should ignore what he had to say about that...or twist his words and meaning to suit our own. How convienient. And what evidence is there he was talking about ALL people that engage in same sex attracted activities and simply not just the ones mentioned in the text? Rather presumptions to presume he's talking about ALL people that engage in same sex attracted activities is it not?

I would disagree here. Heterosexuality is the normal genetic function behind reproduction. Sex chromosomes exist, and hormones are obviously coded for in DNA. It's just that homosexual attractions seem to develop when something goes wrong, usually from environmental factors.

Disagree all you like, but it's still the truth. There is no evidence that sexual attraction is purely genetic be it homosexual or heterosexual! Homosexual attractions develp much the same way as heterosexual attractions and the idea that they only develop when something goes wrong was thrown out by reputable psychologists decades ago.

That's generally true, although there is evidence that it is possible for some at least to change their attractions. LittleShepherd himself did. However, I doubt many people chose to begin feeling attractions.

There's no reliable or credible scientific evidence that ANYONE has ever changed their sexuality. Although some may indeed have done so such as LittleShepherd they are certainly the exception rather than the norm. For most people change may simply be impossible, of course they still have the option of celibacy, if this is a sin.

It is wrong to lust after anyone who is not your spouse, regardless of which sex he or she is.

I agree.

[jerickson314]

No, I think your interpretation (though I have seen it before) is over-literalistic and silly. The fact that your interpretation means it is describing something "impossible" is quite a big hint that your interpretation is wrong. It is a reference to men having sex with men by some means. I don't really see how it could refer to anything more. And the distinction between homo/hetero/bi didn't really appear until like the 1700s or 1800s. (As in, people didn't think of it along those terms before then.)

Ok, If you don't like that interpretation (and I agree it is a bit frivolous) what about this one? This one seems to be a lot more credible (this is from the religioustolerance.org website which looks at various issues from both a conservative and liberal perspective):

First, religioustolerance.org isn't very credible...

Anyway, I can still look at it.

Leviticus 18:22 - King James' Version (KJV)

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They "confuse" the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden." (Although this could be a reference to just homosexual behaviour, of course).
On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

I have seen the "pagan temple ritual" claim many times before, but I have yet to see even a shred of actual support. Aside from one attempt to support it that was blatantly stupid.

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

From the information given, we can conclude the first. It just so happens that the moral law is what still applies!

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation!

Seems most scholars since 1611 have the same interpretation. Nice try.

Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

1. The Net Bible® (NB) translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
2. An alternate translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.

Which is the correct translation?

I've seen #2 before. See here. Apparently it has no support in actual historical scholarship.

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:
All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or (NO!)
All sexual behavior between two men, or (NO!)
Only anal sex between two men, or (UNLIKELY)
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or (PROBABLY)
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed? (POSSIBLY)

Weird. To me, each interpretation looks less plausible then the one that precedes it, from just reading the text. As I said before, the last two have absolutely no support that I have seen.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior. (IE if they are anti gay they will read their prejiduces into the text sadly).

And IE if they are pro-gay they wil read their prejudices into the text, also sadly.

And do clarify what you mean by "anti-gay". If I'm in favor of "love the sinner, not the sin" and don't object to SSA (same-sex attraction), am I "anti-gay"?

English translations of this verse:

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit! If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, (due to prevaling sexist homophobic attitudes within society) their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, (no matter how poorly translated these may be) unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian liberals or Jews.

That's called "poisoning the well". Bible publishers do hire actual scholars, and I would hope that many of them would have a troubled conscience if they put sales over God.

The word "homosexual" was invented in 1891 so how can it appear in the Bible? There was NO Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text. (too true)

Every word in an English translation was invented after the Bible was written! And though there's no Hebrew word meaning "homosexual", it is possible that there can be a phrase which is equivalent. There does happen to be a Greek word roughly meaning "homosexual", even though Paul made it up. Nonetheless, I am not claiming that the Bible condemns same-sex attraction.

Various Interpretations of this verse include:

This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

I've never seen this supported well.

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.

Again, I don't see where ritual comes into the picture unless someone is desperate to find it there.

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

See here again. Geist makes the same mistake.

This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.

Unsupported, and probably unsupportable.

Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches: This is a conservative Christian denomination with a special outreach to gays and lesbians. They enlarged on the condemnation of the ritual uncleanness of homosexual sexual behavior in Pagan temples: "The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were [considered] property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of God. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation.

This interpretation might still apply today...

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

Here, again.

Author Jacob Milgrom suggests that the two passages do not prohibit homosexual behavior generally, but only:
for ancient Israelites, or to inhabitants of Israel, and
who are engaging in anal intercourse, and
who are men, and
who are of the same kinship connections that would prohibit heterosexual relations.

That's random...

Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man.

Creative attempt, I must say...

However, Waskow does also forget about the NT passages. Probably because he's Jewish rather than Christian.

"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman." (Civil Unions for example).

Random and unsupported.

"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness.

Not supportable. Sexual orientation was not recognized in ancient times.

He concludes that if this passage condemns some forms of homosexual behavior, it may refer only to the ancient Israelites, not to North America today. Perhaps: "at one time of human and Jewish history the path avoided gay male sexuality, and at a later time this avoidance might be null and void? Can the circle of the beloved community widen as we mature?"

It could, being OT law. However, we still have the NT references to deal with.

Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.

Oh, wow, it comes to this?

Maybe, as said above, the meaning of "lie" is unclear, and the "as with a woman" is to clarify that it is a reference to sex? Nonetheless, the Torah could potentially be wordy at places. That's not a problem.

A second Jewish writer, Rabbi Gershon Caudill, is: "not convinced that the biblical passages (here in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13) refer to homosexual activity that is within a monogamous, stable, and loving relationship." He suggests that the passages refer to sexual promiscuity, not to homosexual activity within a committed relationship: 7

Now THAT is a conclusion that could only come from prejudices, as it is in no way supported by the actual text.

bullet He notes that Leviticus 18:22 is located in a section of Leviticus that deals with incest and bestiality.

What about a loving, committed incest relationship?

bullet It is not usual for a gay man to have sex with another man as if he the latter were a woman. If he were to do so, then he would be pretending that he was with a woman and not with another man. Thus, he would not be in a homosexual relationship at all. The passage actually refers to a heterosexual male who is forcing himself to fantasize that he is having sex with a woman in order to be able to complete the act. In modern terms, this would be considered as a male heterosexual violating his own sexual orientation.

Again, this interpretation fails miserably because he's reading the modern conception of sexual orientation into an ancient text written for a society where this concept was not recognized.

bullet At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.

I guess we can murder as long as it's not part of a pagan ritual, then. Human sacrifice existed, didn't it?

Really, this is a red herring.

No, that's a New Testament reference to the law, including Leviticus. Still valid, of course.

Oh yeah of course..how silly of me. .Are laws of leviticus are still valid or not? NO! The only one i've ever heard so called "Christians" clamoring for is the one to put 'gays' to death.

I said that the New Testament reference was still valid.

Do see here.

And you do seem to be burning a straw man here. The idea of a death penalty for SSA people is quite distant from anything I actually support.

As I said before, the concept of a person being "homosexual" or "bisexual" wasn't conceived until recent centuries, long after the Romans passage was written. Paul is all-out condemning homosexual behavior and lust, no matter who is doing it.

Which shows the ignorance of the original writer concerrning this matter. That wouldn't be the same Paul that was a sexist and a racist would it?

Paul was inspired. God knew what He was talking about. And Paul was never sexist or racist.

I didn't say that Paul condemned SSA. He didn't.

But we should ignore what he had to say about that...or twist his words and meaning to suit our own. How convienient.

That's what all the people you quoted did with Leviticus...

And what evidence is there he was talking about ALL people that engage in same sex attracted activities and simply not just the ones mentioned in the text? Rather presumptions to presume he's talking about ALL people that engage in same sex attracted activities is it not?

What do you mean by "same-sex attracted activities"? The phrase seems pretty meaningless to me.

And 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 does provide a condemnation of all homosexual (at least male) activity. Romans 1 isn't all we have.

Homosexual attractions develp much the same way as heterosexual attractions and the idea that they only develop when something goes wrong was thrown out by reputable psychologists decades ago.

"Reputable" psychologists fell into liberal ideas and ignored the truth. All I've seen from them is assertions, no actual support.

There's no reliable or credible scientific evidence that
ANYONE has ever changed their sexuality.

There's some scientific evidence. It's just that a liberal political organization called the "American Psychological Association" decided to discredit it through mere assertions.

And then there's the evidence of personal testimonies which, though not scientifically testable, are still valid.

See here for some of the actual evidence.

Although some may indeed have done so such as LittleShepherd they are certainly the exception rather than the norm.

Certainly. They all say that the change process was incredibly difficult. It's quite rarely reported to be spontaneous.

For most people change may simply be impossible, of course they still have the option of celibacy, if this is a sin.

Probably not actually impossible for too many, just very difficult. But I would have no opposition to someone who decided not to change the attractions but to simply live a celibate life. I'm just stating that the evidence indicates that change is possible.

[XenonII]

What about a loving, committed incest relationship?

You mean like the one Adam and Eve had with their kids?
So homosexuality is the equivalent of incest now? Didn't realise two gays could produce kids let alone deformed ones.

[jerickson314]

You mean like the one Adam and Eve had with their kids?

They didn't have one with their kids. Their kids did with each other, but that was before disease entered the gene pool.

So homosexuality is the equivalent of incest now? Didn't realise two gays could produce kids let alone deformed ones.

They are both banned in the same part of Leviticus, as was pointed out. And what about bestiality? I didn't use that one because you can't argue that it's "loving" or "committed". You can't have kids with a dog.

I was demonstrating that a relationship being loving and committed doesn't make it right.

[XenonII]

You mean like the one Adam and Eve had with their kids?

They didn't have one with their kids. Their kids did with each other, but that was before disease entered the gene pool.

So homosexuality is the equivalent of incest now? Didn't realise two gays could produce kids let alone deformed ones.

They are both banned in the same part of Leviticus, as was pointed out. And what about bestiality? I didn't use that one because you can't argue that it's "loving" or "committed". You can't have kids with a dog.

I was demonstrating that a relationship being loving and committed doesn't make it right.

It's a very depressing & lonely "illness"(?). I hate it and wish it didnt exist.

[jerickson314]

It's a very depressing & lonely "illness"(?). I hate it and wish it didnt exist.

I hope you realized that my comments were intended to talk about SSB (same-sex behavior), not SSA (same-sex attraction).

I'll summarize my position:

SSA is not a sin. It is unchosen, though it seems it can be reduced or eliminated in many people. It is an illness, but not something that should be condemned. The Bible does not actually talk about SSA, but other research tends to the conclusion that it is a treatable mental illness.

SSB is a sin. It is a result of choice, even though the vast majority of those who engage in SSB likely experience unchosen SSA. The Bible condemns SSB in several places. Other research does show severe health threats, both physical and mental, associated with SSB.

Have we been agreeing without realizing it this entire time?

Are you saying that you are struggling with SSA? If so, I pray that you will be able to experience recovery. Do see this post for a summary of what I know about the topic.

Whatever the case, remember that God loves you!

[XenonII]

I hope you realized that my comments were intended to talk about SSB (same-sex behavior), not SSA (same-sex attraction).

Yeah, I know the difference.

I'll summarize my position:

SSA is not a sin. It is unchosen, though it seems it can be reduced or eliminated in many people. It is an illness, but not something that should be condemned. The Bible does not actually talk about SSA, but other research tends to the conclusion that it is a treatable mental illness.

SSB is a sin. It is a result of choice, even though the vast majority of those who engage in SSB likely experience unchosen SSA. The Bible condemns SSB in several places. Other research does show severe health threats, both physical and mental, associated with SSB.

Have we been agreeing without realizing it this entire time?

I do respect your opinion on this matter and I do feel we are somewhat in broad agreement over it, even if that hasn't been made clear in the past. I've never felt deep down inside that acting out SSA was right or that SSA was a normal healthy condition. I would question however that this ailment has been eliminated in "many" people. The APA doesn't seem to think so? I also think the severe health threats are more associated with unsafe sex practices, promiscuity and bad luck.

Are you saying that you are struggling with SSA? If so, I pray that you will be able to experience recovery. Do see this post for a summary of what I know about the topic.

Not struggling in the sense that I am engaging in SSB, I find to resist SSB to be quite easy, but the condition of SSA I still find deeply troubling and depressing, it feels like a barrier between me and God at times and is even effecting my faith.

Whatever the case, remember that God loves you!

Sometimes I wonder. Romans says God has abandoned them, but then those people engaged in all sorts of evil acts, and I am celibate, so I don't know and I don't know whats required or expected of me, to try and change, or seek counselling to cope with the feelings, or just remain celebate or what. It's a very loney condition you don't feel like you can talk to anyone about it for fear of what their reaction maybe or the preconceived image they may have of "one of those people". It's also something I feel deeply ashamed about and I didn't really want to discuss it on here but I dunno I need to be able to let someone know about it and not just keep suffering in silence its tearing me apart!