It is a remarkable contrast, the blatant hostility of the interviewer and Bp Minns and the love fest interviews between the BBC inteviewers and Gene Robinson or Katherine Jefferts Schori.

In particular, the interviewer quotes ABp Akinola as describing homosexuality as an abomination and asks Bp Minns whether he agreed with those words. The interviewer then states "It's not even in the Bible." "It's not scriptural." Well, sorry, it is in the Bible unless you have used your exacto knife on Leviticus. He condemns ABp Akinola for using words straight out of the Bible?

He then quotes Gene Robinson silly straw man argument against literalism - "Jesus said you must give away all that you have and follow me. Bp Minns have you given away all your money?"

Well, Bp Minns isn't a literalist. But the theme from Genesis to Revelation is that sexual relations are for marriage and that marriage is for a man and a woman. One can't dismiss that unless you dismiss "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." to "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

Sorry Robroy, "abominatio" is n o t in the Good Book.

It is found in translations, from the 12th century onwards.

More precisely, it was introduced in the famous (or rather infamous) Parisian Versio Vulgata in the late 1100s.

The original Hebrew "toheva" is not known as to its meaning but it has to do with Idolatry; Cult. It appears in Lev 11 (koscher!) and in later books such as Hesekiah and Proverbs (50 each, often in the formula "your transgressions and hmhm") and Macchabeans, but not at all in Numeri or the lesser (older and un-redacted) Prophet books.

"Abominatio" is an instance of the frequent macaroni mixis of languages (Greek/Latin), grammatical forms and Theologies/Philosophies in Versio vulgata and a l l later translations.

“Minns says that it will not result in schism but in a new centre for Anglicanism. The goal of GAFCON is to "work and pray together on how to work together without reacting to the latest crisis coming from North America."”

It is interesting that in Minns mind it is the Global North only, which is “the crisis” in Anglicanism, not the prime Socio-Political movers: IRD, Akinola, Duncan, Ahmanson and Co. Ltd…

The most lingering, chilling thing about Bishop Minns in this BBC Hardtalk interview, aside from the typical realignment presuppositional-definitional jousting - trippingly skips right over the translation difficulties that obtain when any ancient word or phrase from, say, the New Testament codicils is facilely translated into our newish modern word homosexual? - is the mild-mannered smooth surfaces of his gloss that somehow reaches to conserve traditional alarm and ick about same-sex embodiment while denying at the same time that there is anything particularly sinful about queer citizenship that is not equally true of everybody else. But of course if queer folks are simply sinners just in the same sense that straight folks are, why do we ask one group to laboriously and painfully alter their embodied sexual orientations while we carefully refrain from doing so with the other group?

This apologetic for fuzzy condemnatory traditional thinking will do, probably, only for somebody who is little familiar with the hermeneutic devils and the empirical data angels in all the details involved. And for somebody who successfully avoids knowing all the ethical and intentional daily life goods of the two mommies or two daddies who are parenting just down some of our global streets.

A transitional narrative, then, for all its attempts to conserve while sidestepping the most violent of the history so valorized.

Either Inquisition and burning is the right thing to do with faggots who are just as icky and dirty and dangerous as our traditions have construed them to be, without the slightest question or quibble, for long nasty centuries; or such condemnations are a frailty born of the past, replete with just those prejudices - prejudgements, ahead of all the common sense and quite besides all the more carefully researched modern empirical data which precludes us from defining sexual orientation variance as a hindrance to ethical living, if not also as a psychiatric disorder in a Kraft-Ebbing display of sheer Otherness.

A footnote contra Minns: The factual truth is we cannot really tell exactly how ethical any particular person is in daily life, across any number of different domains of thought or motivation or behavior, if all we know about that individual is his or her sexual orientation. If being straight does not hinder one from acting like a boorish devil, then not being straight is no barrier to angelic serenity and exemplary self-giving in service for the good of all.

robroy: why are you at all surprised that Christian homophobia is seen as unpleasant by anyone in their right mind outside the Church?

robroy

"the theme from Genesis to Revelation is that sexual relations are for marriage and that marriage is for a man and a woman"

This misleading generalisation reveals a lack of attention to the detail of what is actually in scripture.

There are a number of men in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation who have more than one wife, or a concubine or two in addition, or a slave girl in addition to a wife. These arrangements sometimes seem to be approved, are sometimes central to the story of God's people, and are by no means universally condemned. Where did the tribes of Israel come from? And I wonder what you make of the book of Esther?

There is also the custom, which Jesus does not condemn when he is confronted with it, of a childless widow being given as wife to her husband's brother - seven of them, one after another. This is an indication of the priority in marriage not being an exclusive sexual relationship, but the provision of an heir. The relationship of property rights to marriage customs is also strong.

The word 'marriage' is misleading and ambiguous in discussions 'from Genesis to Revelation' or indeed 'throughout history' - it is all too easy to believe that the meaning we give to this apparently simple word is the same as it always has been. In fact there are subtle differences between periods and generations. And this has hindered us in having sensible conversations about marriage in our modern context.

By now, we know the splitters and the Puritans all too well, and that certainly includes Martyn Minns.

On the substantive issue, crass conservatism at odds with a liberal openness to the Spirit and to the coming of the kingdom in the world today, there is not much more to say and I think that Giles Goddard says it very well in what looks like his closing letter to his evangelical namesake Andrew Goddard, now online at http://www.inclusivechurch2.net/Giles-to-Andrew-9-29th-May-08-490f282

"He condemns ABp Akinola for using words straight out of the Bible?"

For good reason. Bear in mind that most Evangelical ideas are no more than 500 years old. Thus, I could easily denounce you as "following the elemental spirits of the age", that age being the Reformation. Any of us could bring down the Scripture quoting condemnation of someone or another. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." You can defend +Akinola, or you could consider the effect of such words on the furtherance of the Gospel. What do people feel about leaders who say such things about brother/son/friend/self? Will they want to hear the message? The alternative is NOT to condone sin, but to encourage him to stop sinning. Do you think anyone will be encouraged to stop sinning if you call them an abomination? This is NOT about getting the world's approval, since there is a world of difference between saying "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin" and "the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Well, I CAN say that, after all, it's in Leviticus." See? Do you not see how using such words, and defending their use, reveals the kind of hatred and revulsion I have been referring to? Would you not feel hated and reviled if I did this to you?

"There is also the custom.......of a childless widow being given as wife to her husband's brother ......"

And there is His answer: "In the Kingdom, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." Rather an odd statement for God to make about marriage if it is actually as important as the conservatives claim it is.

A choice quote from the summary about creating an atmosphere of hate:

"I have no antagonism towards homosexual folks," Minns says. He reports that there are many in his congregations who must deal with this issue in their lives. Minns says that he is is sorry that Gene Robinson feels that fear. He says that when people say terrible things to him, he just moves on."

Only a man who has never been fearful for his life on account of threats against his very being could say this without blinking.

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but what a arrogant twit.

Ford
"And there is His answer: "In the Kingdom, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." Rather an odd statement for God to make about marriage if it is actually as important as the conservatives claim it is."

You don't think that something can be important in this life but not in the next?

"He says that when people say terrible things to him, he just moves on." Minns via kieran crichton

Rather like crossing to the other side of the road.

"You don't think that something can be important in this life but not in the next?"

I don't think in terms of "this life and the next". There is only one life. Death may be a transition to another state, but I steer far away from the idea that this life is somehow something to be endured while we wait for better things, or some sort of proving ground so we can get into Heaven. We enter the Kingdom at our baptisms. Our life here is not in contrast to "there", it is our attempt in the here and now to show forth the Kingdom of which we are citizens. We might be waiting for the perfection of all Creation at the parousia, but we are called to live it as best we can now. I know this isn't making much sense, I don't have time to think about how to put it more clearly. But "Heaven" is not the reward for good behaviour here, neither is it our "true home" such that this world is a place through which we only pass on our way elsewhere. That is what our sacramental life is about. I am also not saying marriage isn't important FOR US here and now. What I am saying is that the exalted idea of marriage as put forward by conservatives is not evident, as far as I can see, in Scripture. Neither Jesus nor Paul seemed to hold it in such regard. If our work as Christians is to show forth to the world Christ and His Kingdom, what's important is what ever we need to help us do the job. If we need marriage for that, then it is valuable to us. That's the way I see the imnportance of marriage.

ASV, Darby, ESV, HNV, KJV, Net Bible, NKJV, RSV, Webster, Young all use the word abomination. Göran can take up his objections with the translators of these texts. (NIV and NASB use the word "detestable." Is that more acceptable?)

Regardless, to say that the word abomination "isn't in the Bible, it isn't even scriptural" is patently false.

Bp Minns states that he would not use that word here in the States because of the reasoning that Ford alludes to. The goal is repentance and transformation. However, it is culturally insensitive to criticize ABp Akinola choice who is in an entirely different social setting but his stated goals are the same as Bp Minns.

"A new xcentre for Anglicnism".... read Lay presidency and the Reformation theology of Sydney.

"Bp Minns states that he would not use that word here in the States because of the reasoning that Ford alludes to. The goal is repentance and transformation. However, it is culturally insensitive to criticize ABp Akinola choice who is in an entirely different social setting but his stated goals are the same as Bp Minns."

If Akinola wishes to be the leader of a church (or even a movement within a church) that transcends his own national borders, I think it behooves him to start thinking about how his language is heard outside Nigeria. If he doesn't realize this, he doesn't have the skills to be such a leader; if he does realize it and continues to use the language he does, then it's evident his church or movement is limited to those who already think as he does.

Robroy wrote: "Regardless, to say that the word abomination "isn't in the Bible, it isn't even scriptural" is patently false."

Sorry again, Robroy, a translation is not the Bible, only a translation, and "abominatio" isn't even that.

It is not a translation of either Heb tohevah nor Greek bdélugma.

Sorry. But the long and short of it is that it doesn't mean what you have been led to think.

You're correct Robroy. The word abomination does appear in the bible. Daniel 9:27 "...he will set up an abomination that causes desolation..." Daniel 11:31-32 "Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him." These passages referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14

See Zechariah 7:8-14 for how God's "chosen ones" made the pleasant land desolate by refusing to administer true justice and in their hearts not thinking evil of each other.’ “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets."

Read the bible and the many passages referring to the covenants of peace. The abomination are those who refuse to offer peace and withhold grace and justice from others.

"The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." (Revelation 22:17) The last passage from the Old Testament Malachi 4:6 "He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

The abomination are those who have hardened their hearts against others, and incited violence and shunning not just from themselves but from others.

That's the context of how the word abomination is used in the bible.

I think this "translation" 'abomination' provides an excellent example (case study) of how the culture of the translator affects the form of the translated text. The translator makes assumptions about meanings - often unconscious, and unnoted - simply because these assumptions are natural to make in the target language. But the assumptions need not be there in the source language. The failure is a failure to enter sufficiently into the world of the text and appreciate its meaning.

Of course if someone has been taught form childhood that this is an abomination, then abomination is what one expects to see.

But there is a strong case that the purity codes of the OT are not an atomisable list of unrelated rules, as they can appear to us, but a coherent articulation of an understanding of holiness according to a worldview that we only partly comprehend.

Would the people have distinguished between 'moral' rules and others, as we tend to do (see Article VII of the XXXIX)?

When has it ever been a doctrine of the Church that the current edition of the Lexicon is infallible?

"The goal is repentance and transformation. However, it is culturally insensitive to criticize ABp Akinola choice who is in an entirely different social setting but his stated goals are the same as Bp Minns."

And calling people "abominations" doesn't give people the idea that violence against these "abominations" is acceptable, especially in a much more traditional culture in which gay people are already outcast and in fear? For the same man to advocate the jailing of said "abominations" doesn't add to that? Is Nigerian culture so different that to call someone an abomination doesn't do these things or is somehow acceptable? I assume you are either American or British, so kindly refrain from lecturing me, someone from a minority culture who understands far better than you how those from outside can scorn cultural things they don't understand. It is a bit much for someone from a culture that is doing a very good job of destroying small cultures around the world to lecture those whose culture is being so destroyed on cultural sensitivity. How is increasing the risk to people's lives and increasing the fear under which they to live intended to bring about repentance and transformation? How is insulting people and threatening them with fire and brimstone in the next life after a likely violent in this one supposed to do that? I have lived all my life with Evangelicals who seemed to think that the main reason for being a Christian was fear of what God would do to you if you weren't one. You seem the same. Insult, scorn for difference, and threats of eternal damnation, do you really think these are good tools for evangelism? Why do you keep defending your right to treat people like this? You have yet to use the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner". Is this because, after all you have said here, you know no-one believes you love gay people? And I'm still waiting: how much punishment do you think gay people deserve in this life, if 5 years jail is a good compromise? I'm like a crackie with this, I won't let it go.

Even more difficult to resolve than the translation difficulties is the contrary modern empirical evidence. If the ethical topographies common and innate to all - yes, every last single one - of all possible modern queer folks is as definitively flat and empty as it is so frequently preached to be, how can any neutral hypothesis test turn up such plentiful evidence that queer folks are, say, as capable of honesty, commitment, service, moral growth, and care in any number of its common sense forms - without their sexual orientations being the absolute and total ethical hindrance it is so defined to be, mainly by believers who are always telling us how thoroughly biblical they are?

We are simply rehearsing yet another form of that old past dilemma when the scriptures were unthinkingly read to say that the earth was flat and that quite a bit of the presumed other Ptolemaic cosmology was real and true, faced painfully by the disconfirming evidence of Galileo, Bruno, and Copernicus. We know what agony that disconfirmation was, and about how long it took to work through the contrary empirical data, give or take a pang or so.

In form, the disconfirming evidence rather runs remarkably parallel to the new cosmological evidence - except that people and not planets are the hot, hot, hot button topic. And, true to similarities - the underlying conservative argument is that if the earth is not flat, then nothing in the scriptures can possibly be true. Gee how familiar that sounds to some of us.

Way, way, way too familiar to any modern citizen who has bothered to review that difficult, receding history. So how entirely lovely that Minns should steer clear in his efforts to have his modern cake and his traditional biblical prerogatives to talk about how awful those flat, empty queer folks innately are viewed like Ptolemy's cosmos from God's higher revelation angles.

"I think this "translation" 'abomination' provides an excellent example (case study) of how the culture of the translator affects the form of the translated text."

Precisely.

If you see the church in one way, you will translate the Greek word 'episcopoi' as 'overseers.'

If you see the church in another way, you will translate 'episcopoi' as 'bishops.'

But you can't claim that the word 'overseers' OR the word 'bishops' is "in the Bible." You can only say that the word "episcopoi" is in the Bible, and that it has been translated as both 'overseers' and as 'bishops.'

One wonders why so-called 'Bishop' Minns is even given credence by anyone remotely connected with the world-wide Anglican Communion. After all, he was 'ordained' (together with others of his ilk)without the consent of any of the Instruments of the Communion, and his quasi-church organisation CANA is not even a recognised body within the Communion. How, then, can he be said to represent any part of the Anglican Church which derives its status directly from the See of Canterbury?

Also, the organisers of GAFCON - e.g., the Abp. of Sydney, Australia - are noted defectors from mainline Anglican Tradition, with very varied degrees of understanding of the Polity and the Sacraments of the Church Catholic, which must lead to some confusion, at least, when they gather together to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries of Christ in the Eucharist. The question is, will they have a common mind on whether or not Jesus will appear among them in the forms of bread and wine? And is it necessary for them to acknowledge this in their common worship at GAFCON? Is this matter, for them, important? Or is it considered to be adiaphora? Many Anglicans would like to know

Cheryl wrote: “The abomination are those who have hardened their hearts against others, and incited violence and shunning not just from themselves but from others.

That's the context of how the word abomination is used in the bible.“

Sorry again, hardened hearts is the context of how the word “abomination” is used in the t r a n s l a t i o n s of the Bible from the late 12th century, but “abomination” is not by a long shot a translation of either toevah nor bdélugma.

The reference in Daniel 9:27 "...he will set up an abomination that causes desolation..." is probably where toevah/bdélugma belongs, not in elder Texts. The Idol of Zeus put up in the Temple itself by Syrian King (Greek) Antiochus IV Epifanes, a descendant of one of Alexander’s generals (Seleuchos).

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968) 1993/1990 writes (page 408): “(V) Date and Authorship. Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians considered Dan to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chaps 7-12 are written in the 1st pers. it was natural to assume that the Daniel in chaps. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. Few modern Biblical scholars, however, would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th cent. could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Dan, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th century. The theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, his apocalyptic rather [than] prophetic vision, and esp. his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points inescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His historical perspective, of hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid dynasty, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:39-35) contrasted with his merely general reference to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably 165.”

So, “abominatio” is found in the Versio vulgata, the new and greatly changed Parisian Scholastic version of the very reliable millenary Latin translation from 2nd century North Africa and all following bad “translations” (especially English).

The word it is supposed to translate; toevah or bdélugma is apparently Cultic, 2nd Commandment as I said, found only in the late and redacted OT scriptures of the (aloready Hellenistic, because Persian inspired) Ezraic Reform (398 BC), and not at all in others (Numeri; the lesser Prophets).

"It [abomination] is not a translation of either Heb tohevah nor Greek bdélugma."

And if "abomination" isn't, Goran, how much LESS is "homosexual"?! :-/

[Don't think I didn't notice, in your first post robroy, to whom you gave titles "Bp" (or "ABp"), and whom you didn't! >:-(]

"When has it ever been a doctrine of the Church that the current edition of the Lexicon is infallible?"

That's because, has has been pointed out to me here on a number of occasions, God also guides all his translators to ensure his Word is passed on exactly as it needs to be.

In the RC only the pope is infallible. In the AC all translators through the ages have also been and will continue to be for ever and ever, Amen.

"but “abomination” is not by a long shot a translation of either toevah nor bdélugma"

What would be?

Focussing on the word loses its context. It's like examining the bark of one tree and forgetting the forest which gives it context and sustainability.

The interesting thing about the biblical passages concerned is that their context refers to making places desolate and voiding the covenants of peace.

Symptoms of war, genocide, oppression and tyranny are desolate landscapes where life is marginal and souls live in fear of their lives and violation (hardly peaceful).

The redemptive passages of the bible refer to abundance and safety - for all beings.

There are times where one can be so engrossed by the scholarly arguments that one loses the perspective that puts the debate into context.

Here, some souls use the word abomination to refer to things that are "disgusting" to their sensibilities. The bible uses the word abomination to refer to things that make nothing safe.

The interplay between two homosexuals in a bedroom might be disgusting to some, but that does not make their behaviour unsafe to others outside of their intimate relationship. The interplay between two genocidal maniacs might be pleasing to some, but that does not make their behaviour safe to others outside of their intimate coterie.

"In the AC all translators through the ages have also been and will continue to be for ever and ever, Amen."

I thought that was a doctrine of the venerable Hal Lindsay? ;)

"The question is, will they have a common mind on whether or not Jesus will appear among them in the forms of bread and wine?"

Clearly not. Don Harvey, for one, believes the bread and wine ARE the Body and Blood of Christ and that, while Christ might not have specifically sanctioned it, it is certainly appropriate to carry them about, lift them up, and worship them, the Big 39 notwithstanding. When rector of St. Michael and All Angels, St. John's, he did it on the first Sunday of every month, after Evensong. One of the Jensens, on the other hand, has been quite explicit in his belief that the Presence of Christ is in the fellowship of the act, not the elements. That was part of the argument for their trial of individual communion cups, that and the false claim that the common cup is a risk for contagion, you see, thus doing away with it had nothing to do with demoting the sacrament to a memorial act that is in no way like what those sub-Christian Romans do, and all about protecting the faithful from disease!

So, it'll be interesting to see Don Harvey genuflecting and blessing himself in horror as Jensen pours the remains of the consecrated elements down the sink! Will there be, I wonder, a curtain like at the coronation of the first Elizabeth, where the devout Protestants can go to hide their faces from the elevation, so repugnant to them? Oh to be a fly on the wall!

I say, "We should love one our neighbor as ourselves." Then Göran pipes in, "That's not scriptural, that's not in the Bible. I say, "Look at Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.) And Göran pedantically gives me the Hebrew.

OK so should we use detestable, loathsome, really-really naughty? I think we can move on.

I see that an MP was reported to the police for using the word abomination. If I directly quote the King James, then this is not biblical and I should be arrested.

I had written: "... but “abomination” is not by a long shot a translation of either toevah nor bdélugma"

Erica asked: "What would be?"

As far as I understand we don't really know other than it being Cultic; 2nd Commandment, some sort of impurity or contamination by "other" Cult.

Perhaps those that used toevah in late Persian times didn’t know themselves, the formula (Ezekiel, Proverbs) “your transgressions and toevah” being less than clear as to its meaning… A formula.

The "...he will set up an abomination that causes desolation..." is probably rightly associated with Antiochus Epiphanes’s Idol of Zeus, but if so, and in itself, late (167 BC). Not much help in fact.

And it is thus with so much found in he Bible…

Long lost - even to the authors ;=)

I found Minns pretty moderate. I was surprised. But I suppose he was just very English, mealy-mouthed and very Anglican.

I was glad he declined to accept Akinola's rhetoric and intemperate language.

Nonetheless he does not wish lgbt people or liberal christians well, I guess ...

"If I directly quote the King James, then this is not biblical and I should be arrested."

Again, the issue is, given that your claim is that "we should love them (gay people) better than that", which is to say that you should be trying to show them (us) that homosexuality is NOT acceptable to God, but in fact sinful and puts their salvation in jeopardy, why would you want to use language that you know they will find insulting , that will close their ears, and in fact drive them further from the Gospel and salvation? The fact that you defend your right to do this as opposed to being very concerned that your words are actually having the opposite effect to that which you claim is you goal would indicate that the salvation of gay people is NOT really your goal at all, despite your honeyed words. If it were, you would be looking for ways to preach your message to us effectively, rather than defending your right to insult us. Perhaps this would be more understandable if you explained why you think unjust imprisonment is a "good compromise" for gay people in nigeria.

Ford rightly comments that there are some who use honeyed words but have no intention of being loving, generous or inclusive.

Some might then contemplate using different words, which at least would mean an honest expression of their true feelings e.g. "OK so should we use detestable, loathsome, really-really naughty?"

This is also why it is important to put the words being used into context. This is also another case study why it is important to go beyond the characters/tribe/family names to look at what God is saying through the prophets.

A quick google search affirms Goran's suggestion that Daniel was probably referring to Zeus temples where sacrifices were made.

But this is not the only time that we see God rebuking priests and others who think it is okay to sacrifice children and make things desolate (BTW one form of desolation is wilfully withholding compassion from others who are "unrepentant"). e.g. Isaiah 57:1-13; Ezekiel 20:30-44; Hosea 6:4 to 7:16, 13:1-3, 4:12 to 5:5; Zephaniah 1:9; Jeremiah 32:35 "They built high places... to sacrifice their sons and daughters... though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing..."

Recall Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees in Matthew 9:11-13 "‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ (ditto 12:7)

"some who use honeyed words but have no intention of being loving"

That's the funny part. You'll notice that the question assumes that we SHOULD use some words of condemnation. The idea that love might be a better approach than condemnation just is not a part of the reality, no matter how many times it is pointed out. Now this evangelism by threat and fear is typical in my experience. The question is why should this be so? Why is it so important for these people to pretend to themselves that by insulting, wounding, adding to the hurt, condemning, frightening, even entrapping people they are somehow following "The Great Commission"? Fear. They are perpetually under judgement. It is only God's bizarre act of suicide/infanticide that saves them from God's wrath, and He is up there counting up the infractions. If people don't believe, they will burn. If things change, we are bringing down God's judgement on ourselves. Look at the Jensen interview in a previous thread: modern Christianity doesn't pay anough attention to the wrath of God. So, we must live in fear of what will happen to us after we die, and God is the One He saves us from, and those who do not believe the RIGHT THINGS!!! will go to Hell for all eternity. That bizarre mutation of the Gospel springs directly from PSA. The question is, why is it so atractive to them that they actually have to convince themselves it is somehow traditional?

Oh, yes. Naughty-naughty! Truly loathsome. And let's not forget Leviticus 11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011;&version=50;):

"9 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat.

10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.

11 They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.

12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you. "

Detestable indeed. Unforgiveable.

Ach, you liberals have invented a Jesus whom you use like a brand to stamp approval on all and every kind of beliefs, behaviours and attitudes that are pleasing to you regardless of scripture. The problem is that your Jesus is a million miles from the one we actually have in the gospels. That Jesus took sin pretty seriously, talked a good deal about judgement and God's wrath.

In reply ro robroy's assertion that the scriptural ideal is the 'one-flesh' man/woman relationship, Mark Bennett writes:-

"There are a number of men in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation who have more than one wife, or a concubine or two in addition, or a slave girl in addition to a wife. These arrangements sometimes seem to be approved, are sometimes central to the story of God's people, and are by no means universally condemned."

Well, sure, it's a fallen world and what the Bible describes, it does not necesaarily endorse. The real point, however, is surely that God seeks partnership with humans as they are, with all their imperfections and that multiple wives or concubines don't exclude people from key roles in the salvation story - look at Abraham, for example.

Remembering this might be a way forward out of this sterile debate on the acceptability or otherwise of same-sex attraction.

"The question is, why is it so atractive to them that they actually have to convince themselves it is somehow traditional?"

I suspect, Ford, that the problem is that they do not trust their own consciences. They are deathly afraid that if they do not have a strict and unchanging law to follow, they will go astray.

It's Carolingian State Crowd Control and the self-righteous hatred of the others (the non Abstinent) of the Self Martyrs of the Academics of the Alexandrian Command tradition.

Fern Winter,
"The real point, however, is surely that God seeks partnership with humans as they are"

An astoundingly liberal statement, Fern, given the bile of the previous paragraph. Given that you can say that, I wonder if you can see that the conservatives claim is that God only seeks partnership with gay people as they should be.

"They are deathly afraid that if they do not have a strict and unchanging law to follow, they will go astray."

I agree. In the moments when I feel most like Fern Winter does in her post, I would also claim that another benefit of a well defined Law is to give those who claim to keep it a way to feel superior.

וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא

So, we agree that the above at least predates Carolinians, Alexandrians and Parisians?

Rick, can you transliterate and translate the Hebrew?

Isn't that the one Ian McKellen tears out from room Bibles?

To be honest, I don't care whether the interpretation/translation of the Bible came as a result of relatively obscure ideological formations. What I do care is how it is being read now. And I think it seems that how people read the Bible in their context now is what fuels this conflict.

Not, of course, what the text says, unless one is an ipissima verba type like the new(er) congregants of Falls Church.

Now, Rick, posting in Hebrew is a little poncey, don't you think?

"Now, Rick, posting in Hebrew is a little poncey, don't you think?"

Yes, but it's almost the only response to Göran's admonitions that we should not read our bibles in the language we understand because the translations are wrong.

We can't all be experts in ancient Greek and the culture in which Scriptures were written and it really is quite hard how to respond adequately to continuous reminders that the English versions are all not reliable.

Ironically enough, though תּוֹעֵבָה is in my Hebrew lexicon, "poncey" is not in my Webster's.

Erika,
It's perfectly OK to read translations in "languages we understand" as long as we are aware that they are manipulated.

A dozen Words/Concepts of the 10 Commandments have been changed in later Theology from material; Greed, selfishness to "sex", but this is quite stable up to the arrival of "Dynamic Equivalence" in late modernity.

It's all a question of the importance of being Earnest!

"Isn't that the one Ian McKellen tears out from room Bibles?"

Well, that would be a more honest reaction than what is presented here.

bls brings up the tired shellfish argument. Really not a good idea, in that it brings up Jesus' words why we don't worry too much about Jewish purity laws but...

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality [porneia], theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

One has to practice extreme mental contortions to believe that a first century Jew did not include homosexuality as a sexual immoral offense.

Erika,

It is indeed possible to read translations that are wrong, as long as we know that we do, because the sexualizations are systematic. It is a question of a dozen or half a dozen words/concepts found in the 10 Commandments that have been read (by Academics) in Academic Greek (and tendentiously so) instead of in Koíne, Bible Greek.

A sexualized reading has been chosen over the material.

10th Commandment epithumía; Greed/selfishness damaging the common Good , has become (sexual) “covet”, obsolete Porneía; sacral prostitution, has become Scholastic unchastity (per Dynamic Equivalence “sexual immorality”) and 7th Commandment moixeía has become the “sexual infidelity of what Irish law of the 1st Millennium termed the adaltrach; 2nd wife/concubine (of the Daughters of Eve ;=) instead of disloyalty of the Husband à la Count Almaviva towards his duties to the House.

Modern Essentialism and Gnosticist Apostasíou are in the forefront: The abstract is become realia = “thing”.

All this, dear Erika, (and more) is easily spotted…

The Modern Americanism (originally referring to the Elsevier “Textus receptus” the Renaissance Bible) that “God protects (and preserves) His word” (written) is in reality the Time honoured Indian Idea of “rita”; Right.

What is, is Right.

Which amounts to an Ideological defence of “Culture” (merely pragmatic/Patriarchal in itself).

Göran
"It's perfectly OK to read translations in "languages we understand" as long as we are aware that they are manipulated. "

and you say that this is easily spotted!

Not by me, I'm afraid, and I dare say not by most people. Unless we know which words in which context have been mistranslated, and what they should have been, it is not of much practical use to know that some have been manipulated.

You would also need to know all the possible variations of mistranslation so your internal alarm can flash every time you come across an English word that may possibly be wrong in the context. And then you still don't know whether, in that particular context, it actually wasn't wrong..... it would never have occurred to me to question "abomination", for example, yet you highlighted many instances where it was mistranslated but also one where it was correct...

Is anyone working on an accurate bible translation?

Robroy wrote: “bls brings up the tired shellfish argument. Really not a good idea, in that it brings up Jesus' words why we don't worry too much about Jewish purity laws but...”

Why “tired” Robroy? You do understand how important shellfish are as t he identity marker within Judaism??

Consequently Mark 7:18-23 says: 18 “And He said to them: So you are un-hearing, don’t you understand that nothing which enters humans from outside going into their bellies can make them base/level. For nothing goes into their hearts but into the latrine – herewith He declared all food clean,

19b And from the hearts of humans quarrels and evil go out, prostitutions [porneíai], kidnappings (of human beings for the slave trade), murder, disloyalty, (economical) dishonesty, fraud, bacchanals, the evil eye, slander, arrogance, ridicule. 23 All this evil comes from inside and makes humans (cultically) impure.”

All this, being Cult (2nd Com), Collective (7th Com) and Social (8th – 10th Com), said c o n t r a Kosher (Lev 11).

“One has to practice extreme mental contortions to believe that a first century Jew did not include homosexuality as a sexual immoral offence.“

No this, Robroy, is generally called “an argument from silence”. Generally not considered valid. It may so be – but on the other hand, maybe not. We never can tell if not explicitly stated.

Something approaching this Philosophical/Gnosticist view i s however stated by some Jewish Platonists in Hellenist inter-Testamental literature. T h a t we do know – which on the other hand is an argument not to ascribe it to Judaism generally ;=) Judaism never was anti-sex. Certain individuals though, like academically challenged friend Filon or renegade double traitor Josephus né Levi were Hellenists – but only prove the Rule…

“Moral” and, more so, IM-moral are Scholastic; 12th century concepts. Earlier the word referred to “way of life”; Biography, History, such as Plutarch’s Moralia, Platonizing fantasies about “famous men” – some of them entirely imaginary (Persian King Sardanapalos comes to mind – ever even more lascivious than the Daughters of Eve themselves…

;=)

To me it's easy, Erika. When I was young the word "sex" did not exist. I f it was used (in English) it meant what w e mean today by "Gender".

So everything which appears as "sex" is suspect, to say the least.

Scholatiscism, if not worse.

Remember that Judaism never was anti-sex, only Hellenist Philosophers and Gnosticists.

The present homo-sexualizations mostly are re-makes after 1955 (but some are re-makes after 1970 of obsolete ecclesiastical or crowd control policies)

"One has to practice extreme mental contortions to believe that a first century Jew did not include homosexuality as a sexual immoral offense."

Yes, and a first-century Jew also believed the earth was only 4-5000 years old, flat, and that the sun revolved around it.

Do you truly believe that if Jesus were here with us today (in body as well as in spirit) he would still think of all such things as he did as a first-century Jew?

Before this derails the thread any further, Goran, can you tell me if you published anything in English about this? I'm willing to keep an open mind--but my comments above still stand.

As I said, it may not matter if it was mistranslated. I have heard some who say that the translators themselves were divinely inspired in the same way as the authors of the Bible itself were. And some would even go so far as to suggest that the only divinely inspired translation into English is the King James Version.

I'm curious, though: what version do they use at Falls Church?

Matthew 7:1-2 "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Galatians 3:11 "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”

The beauty of not living by the law, or the scribes, or dictionary interpretations, is that one is free from judgement by a prescribed set of rules.

God measures Eve's intentions, not her ability to play "by the game", grace through Jesus comes not from works but from faith, the covenant of peace is offered to all, not just the "chosen" gender, caste or species. Those who live by faith are not "bound" by the rules of oaths and law, those who live by law (and oaths that hinge from such) find themselves painted into corners of their own making. The latter find John the Baptist's head upon a platter.

Getting back to the article under discussion:

Quote: "Minns... is spending his weekend in Morristown, N.J, where he moved last month. His five children, ages 42 to 25, are all out of the house, although he quipped to TIME that with 12 grandchildren "I'm following the Abrahamic covenant" that promised multiple offspring to God's people." Unquote

Now I see why Mr Minns is a friend of Archbishop Jensen and the cohorts of Gafcon. He feels he is an exemplary heir to the Abrahamic tradition, which 'promised multiple offspring to God's people'

Is this why the 'unfruitfulness' (in terms of progeny) of gays and celibate clergy is so infra-dig in the Global South and its afficionados?

I wonder what the celibate and childless Jesus would think of this championing of the profligate and unrestrained population of the planet?

"Do you truly believe that if Jesus were here with us today (in body as well as in spirit) he would still think of all such things as he did as a first-century Jew?"

Or is it possible that, being God, He knew that talking to first century Jews about the real age of the Universe, the shape of the world, and any number of other things would be counterproductive to the spread of His teachings, since people already had enough trouble accepting what He was saying? Is it possible that God does not reveal things to us in full becausee we simply aren't capable at the time of understanding it? What would have been the point, when He was inspiring the writing of Genesis, of saying, "Well, I made the Universe billions of years ago, it took thousands of years for it to cool down enough for even the most basic particles of matter to form, millions of years after that before I caused life to appear and begin the long process of evolution that would eventually, after billions of years, lead to huiman beings. And the world is round. And despite what you think is the evidence of your own eyes, the sun doesn't move, the Earth revolves around it." What person in those days would have believed anything so manifestly preposterous at the time? Millions of Christians don't even believe it now.

Ford:

Well put. I should have considered it in exactly that way. I have come to the conclusion--long ago--that the Spirit provides revelation and inspiration not only in matters of faith, but in all things...including scientific knowledge. When we are ready to understand, the Spirit reveals or inspires the knowledge.

Ren Aguila wrote: “Before this derails the thread any further, Göran, can you tell me if you published anything in English about this? I'm willing to keep an open mind – but my comments above still stand.”

Only bits and pieces (some in Swedish) on my own blog (which I haven’t been able to access since November 2004) and in various comments.

Ren Aguila wrote: “As I said, it may not matter if it was mistranslated. I have heard some who say that the translators themselves were divinely inspired in the same way as the authors of the Bible itself were. And some would even go so far as to suggest that the only divinely inspired translation into English is the King James Version.”

Ah, a most ancient refrain, indeed! The LXX was defended by Justin Martyr against Jewish criticisms as m o r e inspired in its Greek translation than even the Hebrew/Aramaic originals.

Especially the almà = young woman contra parthénos = technical virgo readings of Isaiah 7/Matt 1:20-25.

It seems quite a few are perfectly able to hear and rejoice in the Gospel through the late dogmatic innovations and the contemporary cultural/socio-politic buzzzz, wheareas others get stuck.

Ren Aguila wrote: “I'm curious, though: what version do they use at Falls Church?”

Quite ; = )

"...everything which appears as "sex" is suspect, to say the least."

I'd be very interested to read a non-sexual translation of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus.

"Isn't that the one Ian McKellen tears out from room Bibles?"

I hope they're not too closely printed; if so, he may also be ripping "Love your neighbor as yourself" out of chapter 19.

For what it's worth, the Jewish Publication Society translates the word in question as "an abhorrence."

robroy, you're the one who brought the whole thing up, as I recall. I wasn't talking about the "tired shellfish argument" but about the use of a particular word - which was, if you think back, the question at hand. Now you change the subject when we discuss the actual question of the use of the word "abomination" itself.

But, OK. Let's talk about the Hebrew word used instead, and about another section of the Bible that uses that word - namely, Deuteronomy 24:

"1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,

2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,

3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,

4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance."

IOW, the woman has been "defiled" by having been twice divorced (against her will, I might add) and having had sexual intercourse with husband #2; now, if her original husband takes her back, that is considered "toevah." An abomination before the Lord.

Loathsome, naughty-naughty, detestable, in your words.

Hmmm. Well, it is consistent with the current issue of the church's hatred of homosexuality, anyway: it's another case of the unreasoning punishment of people who quite likely have done nothing wrong. (And, of course, the scapegoating of these innocents for the sake of group ritual purity.)

"if her original husband takes her back, that is considered "toevah." An abomination before the Lord."

Makes sense to me. Marriage may not be forever, but divorce is. If you want to divorce her, buddy, that’s fine, the Law of Moses covers you. But you better be sure, because you can’t have her back.

In fact, without this provision, we see how a woman could otherwise be shared among a number of men. In the absence of such a prohibition, one could easily imagine the development of that sort of “temporary marriage” which I understand exists in some middle eastern countries, due to the power of men to marry and dismiss their wives virtually at will.

Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of hearts. To use divorce in this way certainly seems abominable to me. But if you prefer the term “exploitive,” so be it.

Rick Allen quoted: “"...everything which appears as "sex" is suspect, to say the least."

and wrote: “I'd be very interested to read a non-sexual translation of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus.”

If you give me your e-mail it will be forthcoming, from the Greek as always. It’s in Technicolor ; = )

still quoting: "Isn't that the one Ian McKellen tears out from room Bibles?"

and saying: “I hope they're not too closely printed; if so, he may also be ripping "Love your neighbour as yourself" out of chapter 19.”

Leviticus 19 is the Jewish Catechism, closely followed by Dr Martin in his’… Not least the great change of False Witness from the particular, Court of Justice by the Elders in the Gate (the mere word/claim of the Husbander originally vas valid as Proof – up to the advent of Absolutism here) to Lying in general.

For what it's worth, the Jewish Publication Society translates the word in question as "an abhorrence."

Yet we do not know what toevah meant/means.

Erika

I don't think it is possible to have an accurate translation of the bible. Too many passages are written at too many levels. One translation covers one theme, but that perspective can overlook other valide insights.

That's why it's so much fun to keep reading the bible. Because there are multiple messages and stories within the same text, one can still get an "ah ha" moment after 1000 readings.

For the same reason, obession about a particular word is also silly. The language is the context of the writer's vernacular at the time. God does not speak in only Sanskrit, Hebrew or English. God speaks to us at the level we can comprehend.

Jesus' used the imagery of his time, there was no point using imagery relating to multi-universes or microwaves or airplanes.

That said, I love the insights from scholars such as Goran, they give us a greater appreciation of the intention of the original authors. We just need to be aware that not even the original authors had the "complete" picture. And even if a soul had the "complete" picture, they would need to communicate that to others, and communication means taking into account the vernacular, language and paradigms of the audience.

That's why no one can ever say that they have the complete and perfect scriptures.

Oh, and those purport that they continue the "true" line of Judaism are forgetting that Jesus was sent to rebuke the Jews and heal an error that lead to the destruction of the previous temple. Claiming to accurately continue the Judaic line is actually a confession that they are continuing in the errors that necessitated Jesus' intervention.

"If you give me your e-mail it will be forthcoming, from the Greek as always. It’s in Technicolor ;"

Oh, could you find a way of publishing it on the web (start another blog?) and let us all have the link, please?

Perhaps, Rick - but I notice you've ignored the "defilement" clause. The man can apparently have her back if she DOESN'T marry again. And both men have apparently "dismissed her virtually at will" anyway - and that fact is not what the law addresses. So I'm not sure that's a very strong argument.

But: I'd actually be very happy to view "abomination" as "exploitation," which seems to me to be much closer to what is meant in many cases where "toevah" is used. If we viewed it in this way, then obviously the prohibition against male same-sex relations would in fact disappear when we refer to modern-day same-sex couples who live in a loving (and non-exploitative) partnership.

"I notice you've ignored the "defilement" clause."

Only because that has nothing to do with moral approbation. The elaborate distinction of clean and unclean is not a moral distinction. It is a state that typically requires some sort of ritual cleansing. Remember, when the rabbis debated whether the book of Esther should be included in the sacred books, the terms of the debate turned on whether the text "defiled the hands." Sacred tests so act. It's not that there's anything wrong with them.

"The man can apparently have her back if she DOESN'T marry again."

Yes, the law allows a reconcilliation and remarriage. What's wrong with that?

"If you give me your e-mail it will be forthcoming, from the Greek as always. It’s in Technicolor ; = )"

Goran, if you email me the text at richard.allen@comcast.net I will post it at my little blog at http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com, and we and anyone interested can discuss it.

Two caveats:

1) My family is in the process of moving our home and I may be away for long periods of time over the next few months. Please don't take silence as intentionally ignoring anyone.

2) I am not very technically proficient with anything more complicated than a shovel. I don't know what you mean by your text being in Technicolor. But please keep the text as simple as possible--just a stream of letters, if you don't mind.

"Yes, the law allows a reconcilliation and remarriage. What's wrong with that?"

That was my question, too. What's wrong with that, in the other case, too? You argued previously that "Marriage may not be forever, but divorce is. If you want to divorce her, buddy, that’s fine, the Law of Moses covers you. But you better be sure, because you can’t have her back."

The first husband has done exactly the same thing in each instance: he's given his wife a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house. Why is it not proper to take her back, simply because she has in the meantime married somebody else?

The only difference is the agency of the woman - and if this law had meant to protect her, it would have forbidden the man from divorcing her without cause in the first place. Again, this Law does not address that issue at all.

So I'm afraid these arguments don't really work - but I am certainly willing to understand "abomination" as word indicating revulsion at "exploitation," as I said above. That way we can both agree on something at last - and in fact problem solved.

"You argued previously that "Marriage may not be forever, but divorce is.""

Yes, I pretty much over-generalized it, didn't I? The scheme seems to be that, if a man sends his wife away, he can only have her back if he takes her back before another man marries her. Again, in the context of a largely unlimited right to put away one's wife, it does give the act a sort of potential irrevocability that might make the man think twice.

It is essentially a provision modifying what Jesus told us was a concession to heardness of hearts, and which he pretty much abrogated, rule and exception, by relegating all divorce and remarriage to simple adultery.

Well, I will still point out that the "defilement" in this case is not, really, something "that typically requires some sort of ritual cleansing." It is a permanent condition, by defintion.

I really think this particular law has very little to do with protecting the woman; that could have been done in numerous other ways, and without her becoming "defiled." And of course, the men seem to get away without any sort of punishment; one would think if this were such terrible behavior on their part, something should have been done about that.

No, this is a sexual purity issue, and one that apparently leaves a permanent mark. I do tend to agree, though, as I said above, that "toevah" most often seems to have something to do with exploitation and injustice - or else with idolatry. And neither of those things are at issue in the matter of same-sex partners.

(Matter of fact, the word translated as "abomination" in the dietary laws is not "toevah" at all, but either "sheqets" or "pigguwl," neither of which have moral connotations; the first means "filthy" and the second "stinking.")

Bls wrote: (Matter of fact, the word translated as "abomination" in the dietary laws is not "toevah" at all, but either "sheqets" or "pigguwl," neither of which have moral connotations; the first means "filthy" and the second "stinking.")

Most interesting, for it seems to be "bdeléugma" in the Greek none the less... akatharsía; uncleanness, also being prominent.

Oops. Goran, sorry, I typed my email wrong. It's richard.allen65@comcast.net

bls--sorry for breaking off. My last reply was lost in cyberspace somewhere. I usually take that as a sign to shut up, especially where, as here, the discussion has sunk below the horizon.