Steven Riddle at Flos Carmeli, in his usual thoughtful way, has observations on the pitfalls of literal interpretation of scripture. This always strikes me as a balancing act--deciding when to be more, or less, literal with a particular passage. I agree that a literal interpretation of Genesis won't work, but what about a literal interpretation of Homosexuality?
I don't know the answer.
Update
Gosh. When it rains it pours: Open Book links to a New York Times essay on scriptural interpretation of homosexuality and Christianity Today's response.
This is an area that I just have to go with the "submission of the intellect" because I don't find any interpretation very convincing at all.
In his Commentary on the Torah, Richard Elliott Friedman proposes an interpretation I had never heard before. He concludes:
'In my own view, the present understanding of the nature of homosexuality indicates that it is not an "offensive thing" (also translated "abomination") as described in this verse. The Hebrew term for "offensive thing" (to'ebah) is understood to be a relative term, which varies according to human perceptions. For example, in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that "any shepherd is an offensive thing to Egypt" (46:34); but, obviously, it is not an offensive thing to the Israelites. In light of the evidence at the present, homosexuality cannot be said to be unnatural, nor is it an illness. Its prohibition in this verse explicitly applies only so long as it is properly perceived to be offensive, and therefore the current state of the evidence suggests that the period in which this commandment was binding has come to an end.'
However, Freidman also recommends that for difficult matters in the law, one turn to Deuteronomy 17:8-9, and the authorities of our own age. I'm kind of afraid to ask who those might be.
:)
Posted by: Talmida | October 25, 2004 at 06:40 PM
I was hoping you'd comment. It seems at least soem of th difficlutly is a langauge problem. What is the exact Hebrew word used? Are there different ways of translation or interpreation over time? Are there different ways today? What are the various Jewish interpretations of this passage (They've been studying it longer than we have.)Do those make a difference? Are we overlooking any historical context?
Posted by: Unapologetic Catholic | October 27, 2004 at 02:17 PM
Whoa, there UC! I'm teaching myself Hebrew, I'm not anywhere near proficient yet. However. When I have questions on a subject of Jewish law, I usually start at MyJewishLearning.com and sure enough they have a very good article there that answers many of your questions. The Torah commentary I cited in my earlier comment has a good deal more to say on Lev. 18:22. Freidman uses the translation "an offensive thing" as opposed to the word "abomination" which he remarks was used in older translations, but he doesn't cite a source for his use of "offensive thing." The exact word is (can you read this? I have Hebrew fonts installed) תּוֹעֵבָה which would be pronounced "to'eva" as far as I know. I hope that helps. You might check if Friedman's book is available in your local public library. Good luck!
Posted by: Talmida | October 27, 2004 at 10:24 PM
Majority info here.
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/ >biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]biagra[/url]
Posted by: biagra | July 19, 2007 at 02:48 AM