To me it’s pretty clear that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, and tradition supports this. But, more liberal, moderate, ‘enlightened’ Christians and Jews either avoid those passages that refer to homosexuality or they ‘properly interpret’ them to arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Homosexuality, the sexual orientation, is not mentioned at all in the Bible. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with what it has to say on the subject knows this, though some won’t admit it.

What is mentioned, in a small number of places, is certain sexual practices. The question of interpretation comes up because it’s not necessarily obvious exactly what practices are referred to or why.

Many of the instructions/commandments in the Bible are written to specific people in specific times in response to specific misbehaviours. If you want to understand what the instructions were meant for, you have to understand the misbehaviours that they were given in response to.

Some liberals, for example, interpret Paul of Tarsus’ instructions about homosexual practice as actually referring to a specific kind of cult temple prostitution. I have no idea if it’s true or not, but if it is, then that changes how you would apply the instruction today.

Most mainline and some liberal Christians that I know don’t talk about “proper interpretation”. They tend to either explicitly ignore it (as a teaching for a previous era, when homosexuality as an orientation was not understood), or figure that far more ink was spilled about sins like greed. In the latter case, the argument goes, even if homosexual practice is technically sinful, the disproportionate venom that some Christians seem to use against it is missing the point.

To me it’s pretty clear that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, and tradition supports this. But, more liberal, moderate, ‘enlightened’ Christians and Jews either avoid those passages that refer to homosexuality or they ‘properly interpret’ them to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Now, it’s all bunk so who cares, but that’s a good example of how words are interpreted in the Bible.

Darryl,

You may be interested in Wrestling with God and Man, a book by an Orthodox rabbi who is openly gay. He offers an interpretation that doesn’t try to avoid the difficult statements in Leviticus, but feels they’ve been misunderstood and taken out of context.

For instance, satyrs, dragons, and unicorns are all mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible. But if you do a word search on an online Bible with any of the “New” editions… (drum roll please)… NOT ONE of those words can be found! They are all replaced with “beast”.

The KJV was published in 1611. It is not the standard by which modern translations are judged; the original texts (to the extent that we have them) are. Needless to say, our understanding of ancient languages has improved quite a bit in the last 400 years.

I want to know why nobody is suing translators of Aristotle for mysogyny.

A good plan, Andrew, with only one problem: that would involve taking out all of the references to God, angels, demons, Satan, miracles, prophecy, heaven, and hell. At that point, you’d be down to a pamphlet.

Someday, I have no doubt there will be actually branches of Christianity that use the Jeffersonian Bible.

Still, languages (especially a world-language like English) evolve rapidly. Sometime translations are legitimately revised simply because an older translation will have an English rendering that in the last 50 years has acquired a different general usage or nuance that doesn’t accurately reflect the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek anymore.

Of course languages evolve… But unicorn still means unicorn, and satyr still means satyr. My point is still valid.

Like I said, some translations are prostitutions – but on the whole this issue seems to me like one of the most constantly caricatured aspects of Christianity. The text is certain enough for thousands of biblical scholars (who know better than you or I) to bank their souls on.

First, I would hardly call this a “caricature” of Christianity. There was absolutely no exaggeration on my part. So I am not going to let you feed your self-delusions by simply dismissing it as an exaggeration. I pointed to what an older translation says and what a newer one says. That’s it.

Second, I understand your statement about scholars as saying that you trust that other people have done this research, and since you haven’t heard anything else, you are going to go on assuming what you believe is true.

Theists make similar arguments when debating someone on facts and theories of science. They assume that you need to be credentialed before you can understand something like being an evolutionary biologist or cosmologist. I may not understand quantum physics, but I understand the method scientists uses to arrive at their results. And with that understanding, I can accept scientists on their word becuase I know that I COULD do the science if I had the need and ability to.

But with religion, it is different. We aren’t talking about what killed the dinosaurs. We are talking about immortal souls and the like. So when I first acknowledged my own skepticism of Christianity, I looked to the Bible. I read works from some of those scholars you mentioned above (focusing on historical works like the origins of the Bible, its books, history of the early churches, their beliefs, etc…). And I was shocked at what I found. If you want to know what I am talking about, you are going to have to figure it out for yourself.

I just felt that the truth (or lack of it) was more important than just coasting along with something I suspected was a carefully cultured delusion.

This idea that you can make up offense and then expect to be compensated for it is supremely pernicious and dangerous, and it must be stamped out everywhere it shows up.

Like I said, some translations are prostitutions – but on the whole this issue seems to me like one of the most constantly caricatured aspects of Christianity. The text is certain enough for thousands of biblical scholars (who know better than you or I) to bank their souls on.

It’s not the words that people disagree about, it’s the meaning. When it comes to meaning, people decide what they think it means, or what they want it or need it to mean. How else do you explain the great variety of interpretations of this one book? It’s not a failure to understand the words in English or any other language.

Regardless, this is a stupid suit which hasn’t a prayer. Yet, it is a perfect example of my previous point. To me it’s pretty clear that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, and tradition supports this. But, more liberal, moderate, ‘enlightened’ Christians and Jews either avoid those passages that refer to homosexuality or they ‘properly interpret’ them to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Now, it’s all bunk so who cares, but that’s a good example of how words are interpreted in the Bible.

I do find it incredibly interesting, though, how often and how recently newer “editions” of the Bible are quietly edited to help fit contemporary worldviews better.

For instance, satyrs, dragons, and unicorns are all mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible. But if you do a word search on an online Bible with any of the “New” editions… (drum roll please)… NOT ONE of those words can be found! They are all replaced with “beast”.

Now how would a rational person justify that? I mean, unicorn and beast are not the same word. The language hasn’t changed that much in the last few hundred years to warrant that kind of translation. That would be like calling Jesus simply “person” or an angel a “being”.

It all seems rather eerie when you think about it. Some groups of people are out there actually changing the Bible to make it more appealing to contemporary people. I thought the Bible was “God-breathed”? Like God somehow guides the Bible. Does God no longer believe in Unicorns or is it more likely that these subtle changes have been going on for some time. And that only undermines the Bible’s legitimacy even further than obviously mythical creatures could push it.

I find it hard to come to grips with how a real Christian could justify this, but there is a business angle. Bible sales are good business. Certain members of my family have over a dozen bibles each. It would make rational sense to adjust the Bible to make it seem less ridiculous and therefore increase the amount of Christians and then increase the Bible sales. Not very ethical, but rational… yes.

It is a complete shame that translations often do that. Often it is done to appeal to a particular audience – and I agree that changing a word to make it more palatable or socially acceptable is unethical, and being a Christian I think it’s sinful – especially when it’s driven by greed. There’s no good excuse for it and I have no desire to excuse the publishers who do those kinds of things.

But, fortunately, there are so many Greek and Hebrew (and Latin and Syriac, etc) texts from different times and places over the last 2,000 years that textual criticism can give us Greek and Hebrew texts that are truly, for all practical purposes, accurate. English translations simply need to be checked against the Greek and Hebrew. Some (like ‘The Message’) are much more accurately called paraphrases then translations.

Still, languages (especially a world-language like English) evolve rapidly. Sometime translations are legitimately revised simply because an older translation will have an english rendering that in the last 50 years has acquired a different general usage or nuance that doesn’t accurately reflect the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek anymore.

Like I said, some translations are prostitutions – but on the whole this issue seems to me like one of the most constantly caricatured aspects of Christianity. The text is certain enough for thousands of biblical scholars (who know better than you or I) to bank their souls on.

A good plan, Andrew, with only one problem: that would involve taking out all of the references to God, angels, demons, Satan, miracles, prophecy, heaven, and hell. At that point, you’d be down to a pamphlet.