So what is the Cause?

[Ken]

Roman paganism did not do that at all. Greek and Roman gods were all human form (Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Venus, Minerva, etc. Always depicted in human form. Every ancient depiction of Greek and Roman gods is in human form. Rome and classical museums are full of statues of Roman and Greek gods. They are always depicted in human form.

... and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being ...

So he wasn't calling out Roman paganism? Only Isis?

The Isis cult did plenty of that too.

But even if he was talking about pagan Roman religion as well, that doesn't negate my larger point which is that Paul seems to be criticizing contemporary 1st century non-Christian religious practices in Rome and saying that such religions lead to all these sins including sexual practices he considers sin, and not the other way around. In other words, he was talking about a specific group of people practicing pagan religion and cults.

[ken_sylvania]

Roman paganism did not do that at all. Greek and Roman gods were all human form (Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, Venus, Minerva, etc. Always depicted in human form. Every ancient depiction of Greek and Roman gods is in human form. Rome and classical museums are full of statues of Roman and Greek gods. They are always depicted in human form.

... and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being ...

So he wasn't calling out Roman paganism? Only Isis?

The Isis cult did plenty of that too.

But even if he was talking about pagan Roman religion as well, that doesn't negate my larger point which is that Paul seems to be criticizing contemporary 1st century non-Christian religious practices in Rome and saying that such religions lead to all these sins including sexual practices he considers sin, and not the other way around. In other words, he was talking about a specific group of people practicing pagan religion and cults.

"including sexual practices he considers sin"....

[Bootstrap]

But even if he was talking about pagan Roman religion as well, that doesn't negate my larger point which is that Paul seems to be criticizing contemporary 1st century non-Christian religious practices in Rome and saying that such religions lead to all these sins including sexual practices he considers sin, and not the other way around. In other words, he was talking about a specific group of people practicing pagan religion and cults.

If you look at the various things he addressed, he seems to be addressing the three largest religions of the time in Rome.

Later, in the same book, he talks about Christians and Jews extensively. They seem to be the main alternative to what he addresses in Romans 1. I imagine Paul might address modern Americans the same way.

[Valerie]

https://www.moodyradio.org/programs/in- ... -programs/

I just happened to catch this while driving.
Excellent interview with a former lesbian Rosaria Butterfield which is helpful here.

Her recent book talked about is one I plan to order. As she was speaking, posts here came to mind.

Book is Five Lies of our Anti-Christian Age

[NedFlanders]

https://www.moodyradio.org/programs/in- ... -programs/

I just happened to catch this while driving.
Excellent interview with a former lesbian Rosaria Butterfield which is helpful here.

Her recent book talked about is one I plan to order. As she was speaking, posts here came to mind.

Book is Five Lies of our Anti-Christian Age

Her book: The Gospel comes with a House Key, has some good food for thought in it.

[Franklin]

I think I know basic Hebrew. Could you please explain the ambiguity you see? I don't see that ambiguity in this text.

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Could you please explain how you arrive at the interpretation you suggest?

I don't see the "as". If it was "as with" I would expect something like:

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Adding "כְּ".

For what it's worth, I asked ChatGPT about this and got:

me: Why wouldn't it read וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃ to make it more clear?

ChatGPT:

Your inquiry touches on the intricacies of biblical Hebrew grammar and style.

The original text is "וְאֶת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃".

Here, "מִשְׁכְּבֵי" (mishk'bei) is constructed from the root word "שָׁכַב" (shakhav), which means "to lie down," with the prefix "מִ" (mi-) and the suffix "-י" (ei). The prefix "מִ" often denotes an origin or a source, and the suffix "-י" is often a possessive, translating roughly to "of." So "מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה" can be understood as "the lying of a woman" or "as one lies with a woman."

Your suggestion, "כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י" (k'mishk'bei), does introduce the "כְּ" (ke-) prefix which translates to "like" or "as." This would indeed make the comparison more explicit in modern language standards.

Biblical Hebrew, however, has its own unique style, and it doesn't always adhere to what might seem clearer or more explicit to us today. Also, remember that ancient Hebrew was both a spoken and written language with nuances that may seem foreign to modern readers but were clear in their original context. The original phrasing was likely clear to its ancient audience, even if it seems less explicit to us today.

In many translations of the Bible, scholars use the "as with" formulation to make the text clearer for contemporary readers.
--------------------------------------

Not very convincing, but I am certainly not an expert on Hebrew.

[Bootstrap]

I think I know basic Hebrew. Could you please explain the ambiguity you see? I don't see that ambiguity in this text.

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Could you please explain how you arrive at the interpretation you suggest?

I don't see the "as". If it was "as with" I would expect something like:

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Adding "כְּ".

For what it's worth, I asked ChatGPT about this ...

I thought I'd ask ChatGPT how these two sentences differ:

Please explain the difference in meaning between the following two sentences:

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Here's what it said:

While the sentences are similar, there is a subtle difference in their wording, which can impact the interpretation. Here's the difference in meaning between the two sentences:

• וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
  Translation: "And with a male, you shall not lie as with a woman; it is an abomination."
  Meaning: This sentence explicitly states that lying with a male as one would with a woman is prohibited and considered an abomination.
• וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
  Translation: "And with a male, you shall not lie in the manner of lying with a woman; it is an abomination."
  Meaning: This sentence specifies that lying with a male should not be done "in the manner of lying with a woman," emphasizing the act rather than the gender. It also labels this act as an abomination.

The key difference lies in the first sentence's direct comparison of lying with a male "as with a woman," while the second sentence describes it as lying "in the manner of lying with a woman." The second sentence provides a bit more detail about the nature of the prohibited act. However, both sentences convey the same fundamental message: homosexual relations between males are forbidden and considered an abomination according to Levitical law.

I'm guessing that's more or less correct.

But I also cannot find כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י anywhere on the Internet. Which makes me suspect it might not be a common way to express anything.

[Franklin]

To me, a sin is something that harms society and in almost every case that something is labeled a sin in the Old Testament, I understand how society is harmed. I don't understand how homosexuality would harm society, so given a choice, I wouldn't consider it a sin. Things like promiscuity and divorce harm society, so are generally sinful.

Do you think eating pork harms society? Do you think having a foreskin harms society?

Eating pork was unhealthy at that time, before refrigeration, so it harmed society. Having some identifiable mark like circumcision was good because it meant that men couldn't just run away in war and pretend not be Israelites.

I don't think the Israelites could pick or choose based on whether they thought something harmed society. I don't think we can either. I do think circumcision and pork are different issues for New Testament believers than for the Israelites, but I think sin is anything that violates God's command, whether or not you or I think it harms society.

All of God's commands require interpretation. Those who claim sola scriptura are actually just lying because there is always an interpretation based on something. For example Protestants interpret the Bible based on modern cultural degeneracy. I interpret the Old Testament based on the idea that God is only speaking for our benefit, so the interpretation that benefits us most is the one most likely to be right.

[Franklin]

I thought I'd ask ChatGPT how these two sentences differ:

Please explain the difference in meaning between the following two sentences:

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Here's what it said:

While the sentences are similar, there is a subtle difference in their wording, which can impact the interpretation. Here's the difference in meaning between the two sentences:

• וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
  Translation: "And with a male, you shall not lie as with a woman; it is an abomination."
  Meaning: This sentence explicitly states that lying with a male as one would with a woman is prohibited and considered an abomination.
• וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃
  Translation: "And with a male, you shall not lie in the manner of lying with a woman; it is an abomination."
  Meaning: This sentence specifies that lying with a male should not be done "in the manner of lying with a woman," emphasizing the act rather than the gender. It also labels this act as an abomination.

The key difference lies in the first sentence's direct comparison of lying with a male "as with a woman," while the second sentence describes it as lying "in the manner of lying with a woman." The second sentence provides a bit more detail about the nature of the prohibited act. However, both sentences convey the same fundamental message: homosexual relations between males are forbidden and considered an abomination according to Levitical law.

I'm guessing that's more or less correct.

But I also cannot find כְּמִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י anywhere on the Internet. Which makes me suspect it might not be a common way to express anything.

I guess I will look into this more with people who are fluent in Hebrew. I will get back to you on this.

[Bootstrap]

Hmmmm, and while we're at it, a similar form, כְּמִשְׁכַּ֥ב , does occur, but the meaning is different:

https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/15-26.htm

I would want to ask someone whose Hebrew is better than mine before putting too much confidence in what I am saying here, but this is my initial thinking ... and yeah, looking for people fluent in Hebrew is a good idea.