GAY TRUTH

What do you do when the biblical text is against your position, explicitly so? What do you do when not one single verse supports your viewpoint? It’s simple. You create new verses out of thin air. You rewrite the Bible to your liking. That’s exactly what biblical scholar Idan Dershowitz has done. In his New York Times op-ed piece , Dr. Dershowitz summarizes his 2017 academic article published in the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel. (Is it any surprise that the Times decided to publish his piece?) Dr. Dershowitz claims that “Before Leviticus was composed, outright prohibitions against homosexual sex — whether between men or women — were practically unheard-of in the ancient world.” And he believes that Leviticus was “created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer.” He then argues that “an earlier edition of Leviticus … may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.” (Note carefully: He means a non-existent edition of Leviticus. A Lev

NEW YORK TIMES TAKES AIM AT BIBLE, SAYS BOOK OF LEVITICUS USED TO CONTAIN PRO-HOMOSEXUAL VERSES IN ‘EARLIER TEXTS’ The authorship of Leviticus by Moses is confirmed by Jesus Himself in Luke 5:14 and Matthew 8:4 in your King James Bible. Additionally, the apostle John confirms that Moses wrote Genesis in John 7:22. So the idea of there being other authors of some non-existent version of Leviticus or any other of the books of the Pentateuch authored by Moses is laughably ridiculous. A quick word search for ‘moses’ shows us that his name appears 848 times in 748 verses, with hundreds of references proving beyond the shadow of any doubt that God used him to author the first 5 books of the Holy Bible. There is no other group of people more apt to destroy your confidence in the Holy Bible, than that gaggle of textual critics known as bible scholars. They don’t believe that God has preserved His word, they don’t believe in its authority, and they have no compunctions about revising history

From the op-ed pages of the New York Times comes “ The Secret History of Leviticus ,” an improbable essay by Idan Dershowitz. A scholar of the Hebrew Bible and a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, Dershowitz has written for the Times a popular version of the academic argument he published recently in the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel . The Book of Leviticus contains two prohibitions against homosexual acts, the first of which (18:22) states: “You shall not lie with a male as though lying with a woman; it is an abomination.” According to Dershowitz, “before Leviticus was composed, outright prohibitions against homosexual sex … were practically unheard-of in the ancient world.” But he proposes that “an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men,” albeit tacitly. Supposedly, the laws were revised by a later editor so as to include the prohibition, and to “obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.” Dersho

Within the Christian community , the issue of whether or not homosexual behavior is consistent with biblical teaching has once again become a hot topic of conversation, though in recent years it has never been too far from the forefront. Indeed, American churches have been split over this issue and the Supreme Court decision promises to ensure this matter is not going to go away any time soon. Amongst the flurry of articles and blogs addressing this topic, of most interest to me have been those which attempt to defend the compatibility of homosexual behavior with Biblical teaching. This should be of interest to all Christians considering that for nearly 2,000 years the historical and consistent position of the Church has been that homosexual behavior is sinful and prohibited by Scripture. And prior to Christianity, this was also the historical position of the Jewish people which they based on the teachings of the Old Testament . There is a reason of course that both Jews and Chri

How significant are the prohibitions of same-gender behavior in Leviticus 18 :22 and 20:13? Are these passages limited to Israel’s purity code and her separation from the surrounding gentile nations, or are they universal? The Revisionist Answer The context limits the prohibitions to the cult or religion of Israel, as shown by the use of the word abominable (Heb. toʿeba, Gk. bdelygma). These regulations belong solely to the purity laws applied to Israel in the Old Testament and have no on-going value as moral standards. These passages are never quoted in the New Testament as part of the Christian ethic. Establishment of the death penalty for violators does not help determine whether the texts apply to the modern world. The texts have no relevance. The Biblical Answer Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly describe homosexual behavior, with the second passage calling for the death penalty. The words abomination or detestable occur in both passages. Among the vices listed in the

Boswell revealed a blatant moral relativism in his struggle with the presence of adultery and incest in Leviticus 18 and 20 . He wrote,  “Although both chapters also contain prohibitions [e.g., against incest and adultery] which would seem to stem from moral absolutes, their function in the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 seems to be as symbols of Jewish distinctiveness.” Boswell must categorize these prohibitions as “symbols of Jewish distinctiveness” (forcing them to fit into his cubbyhole of ritual impurity) or else his entire argument fails. To admit that incest or adultery in this context is “inherently” or “intrinsically evil” would be to admit the presence of non-ritual uncleanness, which is described as toevah. A simple study of the word toevah reveals an insurmountable obstacle for Boswell interpretation. Numerous times in the Hebrew Bible we find that the word toevah refers to the sins that were committed by the pagan nations surrounding Israel . Now, if toevah

We cannot simply scrap the book of Leviticus . We need to learn to make distinctions where the Bible makes distinctions. The entirety of Leviticus is not applicable today, neither is all of it inapplicable. We must allow the Bible to interpret itself.  We have seen that the attempts offered to reduce the prohibitions against homosexuality in the book of Leviticus to something that is exclusively Jewish are without warrant and will not stand up to biblical scrutiny.  It is far too simplistic to assert that we “are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) as if the law had no relevance for the Christian today. Paul, who frequently cites the law as he is teaching the church (even the Gentile churches), quotes from Leviticus and many other portions of the Law of Moses . Paul must have meant something other than “the law is irrelevant” when he wrote those oft-misunderstood words in Romans 6:14. CHAPTER FIV White , J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controver

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ( Leviticus 18:22 ) If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) These passages in the book of Leviticus are abundantly clear in their rejection of homosexuality as a practice or a proclivity. Homosexuality then and now is not compatible with biblical morality; it is not acceptable to God. Both sides of the same-sex controversy readily admit the clarity of these passages; therefore, those who advocate the acceptability of homosexuality in either deed or in desire must do something with these passages. They must answer the searing indictment from this portion of God’s Word. The first and most common approach to these passages by those who advocate the consistency of homosexuality with biblical morality is to present them as irrelevant to the

A response to Brad Chilcott.  Homosexual sin - the Law and the Old Testament Biblical support for legislation respecting homosexuality is not without importance, even for those who disregard the authority of the Bible. The Old Testament was the most important force in shaping the ethics and legislation of Western Europe and especially the United States and Canada.2 The Old Testament law’s position on homosexuality. Yet, this legislation takes its foundational principles from an ethic that derives from religious truth. The ethical system of the Bible rests on a creation ethic, which affirms that God created humankind as male and female in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26–27).  Created humanity bears the divine image as a rational, moral, and spiritual being. Human life is sacred. Society from the beginning has used legislation to punish murder because it destroys something sacred. From the Flood onward, God has ordained capital punishment for murder to preserve the divine