Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules

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. 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

---

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?

---

ok, triple entendre it is.

haha, i think i'm gonna like you. however. as you probably picked up from my above messages, i do know a little hebrew here and there. (ish) is indeed the common word for "man" and (ishah) is indeed the common word for "woman." i'm actually unaware of any "context" that implies they are neccessarily husband and wife, unless possesives are used.this is also a reason that you shouldn't try to "retranslate" stuff with a concordance. concordances catalog root words, and contain no grammar, and are actually not very useful for translating. in any case, genesis 2 refers to adam and chavah, in verse 25 as:

quote:

---

​

ha-adam v'ishto

​

the-man and-woman(his).

​

the man and his woman

---

the implication of "his woman" is "wife" and so it's perfectly acceptable to translate ishah as "wife" in this instance if you're using an idiomatic translation.

---

see Message 31see Message 22no sex is actually mentioned, either, unless you really twist the meaning of , (etz ha-daat, tree of knowledge).rather, i think it's important to not that genesis 2 seems to be the cultural explanation of marriage itself, not just the bit read at weddings. see Message 18women were non-objects, and genesis 2 is simple male-centric. no surprise there -- the man exists, and woman is created for him.Edited by arachnophilia, : evil broken tag

---

yes, something i pointed out. i just thought you'd be interested, since you seemed to be contending (above) that the "male and female" aspect refered to a single individual. perhaps i misunderstood. you mean you get the impression it's an idiom for sex? interesting, i hadn't thought of that. the word in question, ‘ (dabaq) literally means "adhere" or "attach." the noun form means "glue," or (colloquially) "leech" (person, i think, not the animal).i imagine "attach" could have sexual implications, such as the modern english "hook up." but i think there is just as good argument for marriage. one literal meaning -- and a pun. yes, of course. i think i said as much too -- but i do think it functions as an explanation for that practice. lol did you now? Edited by arachnophilia, : typo.

---

hmm, yes, that might makes sense -- however. there is nothing in the story that even hints at procreation until this verse. there's a reference to "be fruitful and multiply" in chapter 1 -- but that doesn't happen in chapter 2 (an independent story anyways).it still might be a valid reading, as long as you're aware that it says "man is lonely, therefor we screw." actually, that might even be kinda funny... oh, no, of course. clearly, the patriarchs married multiply wives, so their idea of marriage was a little more flexible than modern christianity's. yes, this is true. well, that's only because it takes commandments given directly by god, and probably only ones that are still valid. "don't touch my tree" doesn't really make much sense anymore, and i don't think god gives any other commandment in gen 2.but i'm sure there are groups of judaism that read "be fruitful" as knocking homosexuality.

---

yes, that's what pd was pointing out. i see how it could work.

well, i doubt "fruit" was used in that particular way...but this book is just full of double entendres, aint it?

nearly every single example i can think of for families in the old testament involve children and even grandchildren living under their father's roof. the women marry into a family, not the men.the only counter-example at hand is jacob, who lived under laban's roof, and worked for him as a dowery for this wives. but that was out of trickery, not custom -- and in the end, jacob flees and takes his wives with him. and a bunch of sheep, too.mothers determine heritage, yes. but fathers determine families, line of kings, etc.

---

i doubt it. right, but read the way you guys are reading it, it's a very, very out of place reference. and anyways, the next chapter -- part of the SAME source document -- explains subjugation of women. i don't see this as an accidental inclusion that hints at an earlier form of society.i think a more sensible reading is that it doesn't even treat women as people. the man leaves his mother and father -- and starts his own family. the woman is inconsequential, so there's no need to mention her family. she was just property to them anyways. no, but the context and content do tell us something about the society that wrote them, and women were bartered over, as property. the only time in all of the stories where a man lives under his wives' parents roof is as a servant in trade for the wives. not as part of the family.

---

do you suppose it's even possible to keep to an entirely literal reading of the bible that is totally inclusive -- and does NOT cherry pick?

---

true -- and this MIGHT be an addition by the redactor.

---