Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules

We can look back at the stories in the Bible and borrow concepts from them. For example, we can use the term "and they shall be one flesh" in our wedding ceremonies because it was used in the Bible.But we can not assume that all of our marriage concepts came from that source. For example, the white dress, maid of honour, best man, wedding cake and honeymoon do not come from the Adam and Eve story.You are projecting your ideas of "marriage" back to Adam and Eve, when the text doesn't support that view. Well, let's see... What happens when males and females come together? They produce babies, don't they? Their genes are mingled in one new person.I know you can put a woo-woo mystical interpretation on "one flesh", but that too is a projection of your ideas onto the text. Sure, Paul drew a symbolic meaning from the text, just like our modern wedding ceremony draws a symbolic meaning from the text. That doesn't indicate that the symbolism is the meaning.For example, a rainbow is symbolic of God's promise to never destroy the earth again with a flood. But in reality, a rainbow is a natural phenomenon, a natural consequence of water droplets in the air.Similarly, it is possible to use Adam and Eve's relationship as a symbol of our concept of marriage, but the reality is that they had a procreative relationship, not a modern marriage.Your projection of modern marriage concepts onto Adam and Eve is invalid. Therefore, your objection to homosexuality on those grounds is unfounded.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No one is assuming anything of the sort; what I am saying is that the Bible clearly reveals the concept of marriage with Adam and Eve - an argument supported by Scripture itself - not conjecture; So what is Paul symbolizing with a man and a woman becoming one flesh? procreation? or marriage? Since he is relating the church's relationship with Christ it's clearly the latter, not the former; And you're confusing reality with a result: you're right that uniting as one flesh has the possible result of procreation - among other results...That is not the essence, however, of what becoming one flesh is...neither as given in the Genesis context nor as used by Paul...and when Scripture spells something out for you in more than one place, your conjecture doesn't have much of a leg left to stand on....

first off, apologies to ringo. i have to differ with you here, for a change. ringo argued above that this is simply interpretation, but i do not see that as the case. such is actually a bit of a short-sighted view of what the bible is. it starts with "we have the bible, and it says ___." and then presumes that any meaning is drawn on top of the literal text. indeed, this is how we should read the text -- BUT.we should not forget that bible exists for a reason. while you undoubedly agree with my conclusion here, i understand that you will take great exception to the details of the argument itself. when we read the bible, part of the key to understanding it is learning the cultural context, background, and function of the text. genesis in particular is a collection of historical and traditional mythology and etiological tales. the explain how things go to be as they are now (eg. the time of authorship). it is, functionally, a book of origins, written to explain things that already existed.this means, essentially, that the story of genesis 2 primarily exists, and indeed was probably written as an explanation for the practice of marriage. it defines the reason for marriage -- that without a wife man is alone. and so you're actually right, genesis 2 does indeed define the concept of marriage. marriage was not invented when someone penned genesis, marriage was practiced long before that and genesis explains why.the problem, however, with your argument, is that it doesn't rely on having two genders. in fact, it relies on the fact that woman is like man, not that she is different than man. the similarity, not the difference, is the argument. even more curious is that god tries animals, first. but adam's not into that sort of thing.there's actually a very strange argument i read that regards this story as the origin of gender, though. it you'd like, i'll go into that in the next post.

---

Sure i'd like to hear that...

You're going to find out around here that you can't just use Paul to change every other text in the Bible. First and foremost, Genesis says what Genesis says.Now, if we can inch-worm back toward the topic: You have not shown that Adam and Eve's relationship was intended as the be-all and end-all example of every relationship between two people (and that is quite possibly beyond the scope of this thread).But the point of the thread is more like: why this law and why not that one? Let's agree for the moment that homosexuality is naughty-naughty. What about eating shrimp? Can you explain to us, using the same line of reasoning, why eating shrimp is "okay" today but homosexuality is not?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sure, I don't know of any Scripture talking about shrimp so I suppose you're talking about clean Vs unclean foods? There are clear scriptures which talk about all foods being made clean by God and therefore acceptable: Homesexuality, however, is denounced both in principle in Genesis ( we see that heterosexuality is God's ordinance) and directly in:Romans 1:27

sure. let me quote my chumash's footnotes, from chapter 2. (third time today!)

quote:

---

21. ribs. Rashi and Ibn Ezra translate 'sides,' quotin Exod. XXVI. 20 where the Hebrew word is rendered side. This is in conformity with the view that man was originally created male and female in one. God now separated the one (female) side.

---

like the other two times i've quoted from these footnotes, i feel obliged to mention the problems. but i'll start with with a pro first: in my somewhat educated opinion, (adam) is a false singular. look at, for instance, genesis 1:27:

quote:

---

‘ — -
...
— ‘, ‘

​

v'y'bara elohim et-ha-adam... zakar v'neqevah bara otam

​

and-created god (d.o.)-the-man... male and-female created he-them

​

and god created man... male and female he created them.

---

it points to adam, "man," as a plural, with the word "them." i think a better translation, in some cases at least, is "mankind." but "adam" certainly refers to both men and women. or at least one man, and one woman. but the next down point should be obvious, i hope. genesis 1:27 uses the word "THEM" for adam. "them" is not a singular, hermaphroditic entity, it is multiple entities. god also does create by separation -- but in genesis 1, not 2. this story is about joining not separating.the other point (one under constant debate) regards whether genesis 2 takes place after genesis 1, during genesis 1, or if it's just a completely separate story that bears no relation. i often argue the last point, because the case is good -- but they have been editted together very well. just badly split into chapters (genesis 1 ends about 3 verses too early). this argument sort of relies on the first point, that genesis 2 takes places after genesis 1, and god first "creates" and then later "forms" things. you can see my rebuttal to that point in the appropriate thread. but i do not see this case as likely.however, if it's true that they are separate, un- or barely-related stories, the technicality of the plural in genesis 1 need not matter. but even in a good reading of that, the usual presumption is that adam, in genesis 1, refers to mankind, while the adam in genesis 2 is a more localized and special creation, or a more ethno-centric story. there are problems with this, too, like the naming of eve. but that's an odd entry, because later the author seems to not care that there are other people around (both for cain to marry, and for cain to fear).anyways, i feel that genesis 2 is not about the origin of gender, from a hermphroditic neutral gender adam. to read it as such is a very ad-hoc attempt to reconcile the two chapters as one story, where such a connection probably does not exist. there are other such attempts, too, such as the story of lilith. but adam's wife is called (ishah, "woman") because she was taken from (ish, "man"). the story hinges contextual on the similarity of the genders. adam says:

quote:

---

This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.

---

man exist, and woman is named for her similarity to mankind -- more similarity than god's first try with the animals. men and women marry, because fundamentally, women are like men in that they are human. in other words, i see nothing in the story that neccessarily specifies gender as a requirement, only similarity. and men are more similar to other men than women are.however, it would be a mistake to think that the authors meant this. such a union seemed utterly outside their cultural context. rather, the implication of the story is that they view men as independent entities, and that women were made for men (this is what happens in the story, afterall). women are defined by their role for men, but not vice-versa. so there is an implication of gender roles, as you no doubt already quoted from paul.i don't mean to make a point here, exactly, other than that the hermaphrodite reading is out. just trying to provide the pertinant information to both parties. make of it what you will. but homosexuality in the form of marriages was certainly the last thing of the minds of whomever wrote genesis 2.Edited by arachnophilia, : additonal thought

---

Okay. So, in Leviticus, certain foods were "unclean" but by Acts, some or all of them had been "cleansed" - I'm guessing that you're going to say they were cleansed by Jesus' death and resurrection....Then the obvious question is: why were they "unclean" in the first place? In the context of the OP, why was something "wrong" at one time, and then Jesus made it "right"? And why is it that only some of the things that used to be "wrong" are now okay?Can you give us a formula which we can use to take an Old Testament law and calculate whether or not it is still in effect?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

i'd also like to point out that paul's usage of arsenokoites for homosexuals, in every other place in greek literature, refers to pederasty, not the kind of consentual relationship between adults that we have today. such a relationship would have been pretty foriegn to the culture. see this page for some more info.but i also don't know any greek. just a little hebrew here and there.

---

quote:

---

Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

---

sounds like a double-entendre to me. how about you?

---

Would it make a difference which end of the digestive tract it entereth?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

ok, triple entendre it is.

quote:

---

I think you need to read Genesis again...for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE!! his what? and they shall be one flesh...the same terminology used today at marriage ceremonies...you really believe it's not talking about marriage? come on...

---

Not in the sense that you are. Maybe because I do genealogy, I have a different outlook.My husband and I are not one flesh. The child produced from our union is one flesh. So I agree with Ringo on that one. Sarah gave Hagar (her maid) to Abram for the sole purpose of bearing a child. Did Abram really become one flesh with Sarah's maid as well as Sarah? How many wives did Jacob have? One flesh?The Hebrew word "ishshah" translated as wife in this verse can also be translated as woman or female, just as the Hebrew word "iysh" which is translated man in this verse can also be translated as husband or male. I don't know Hebrew to know what nuances determine whether it is translated woman or wife. My guess is that it is possessive. When a man talks about his woman, then she is his mate and we translate that as wife and vice versa. Mating or procreation doesn't constitute marriage.The story of Adam and Eve is a very very very old story. Probably from the time of small tribes. Procreation and companionship were important, not the formalities.Even here in the states, early settlers would go ahead and consider themselves "married" and function as such until the traveling preacher could come around and perform the marriage ceremony. Not being legally married didn't stop them from procreating. If this verse in Genesis is the basis for marriage, then why have the rules of marriage changed over time?I think it just shows that it takes a man and a woman to create a baby.Etymology of our English word "wife". This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation. This was a letter addressing a specific group. But that doesn't change the meaning of the Genesis story.

quote:

---

You are correct that this verse only mentions male homosexual relationships...however as I mentioned aboved...the authority which condemns homosexual relationships is not to be found solely in Leviticus - although it was specifically instituted for the Israelites - but originally in Eden when God instituted marriage as between a man and a woman...

---

But homosexuality isn't about marriage. It is about sexual relationships and companionship, which as I pointed out above, doesn't need "marriage" to happen.

quote:

---

The law had a purpose: to reveal the Christ..having done so it's purpose is over - not that it no longer holds but that it the image has been superseded by the reality..

---

Yep, that's pretty much the answer I usually get and it still doesn't make sense.It's purpose is over, but it still holds. So that means we should still be following all the laws. But we don't, not even the ones concerning marriage. Please show me how all those laws "still hold."Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed etymology link.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

From my perspective.Acts was directed at the gentile converts to christianity. It was a marketing ploy. Get rid of the harder restrictions to follow, and you get more people willing to convert.

First: just because a word in Hebrew has different English meanings, you can't just use whichever meaning suits your purpose..Lacking any knowledge that the translators misinterpreted the word given the context, the word must remain.. Second: These verses are not talking about pro-creation but rather being brought together as one unit - one flesh... Formalities? Replacing the institution of marriage with one effect (procreation) of that institution is not "formalities"....Your example of the settlers is an example of "formalities" - the reality being that they considered themselves in fact "married" - whatever that means?- not merely united for the sake of procreating. What rules have changed? Come on! Everyone likes to conjecture about the Bible which is sometimes neccessary when there is ambiguity; however, the purpose of this verse is given EXPLICITLY by Paul in the very same verse - "FOR THIS REASON, a man shall leave his Father and Mother and shall be joined two his wife, and the two shall be one flesh", For what reason? so that they would procreate? let's look at the context immediately preceding this verse....Eph 5;22-31 [qs]22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church” 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.[/qs]Nothing about procreation - everything about the relationship between a man and a woman paralleling the relationship between Christ and his (bride) the church... When I said the law still holds, I mean that it was fulfilled in Christ -the end of the law... Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" See what Paul says in Galatians:
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.The law served a purpose; that purpose has been fulfilled; That does not mean that the reality behind each individual law has been negated...