The thing that bothers me with that explanation, is that if "where the Torah is concerned, every word counts" - why didn't they use the word 'boy' instead of the more ambiguous 'male'? Seems an intentional choice to refer to men and boys together.
Comment on Now I finally get it
Forester@pawb.social 7 months ago
Just fyi. The original Hebrew version is anti pedo not anti gay. I’m certain this link won’t be popular, but . …timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
Deceptichum@quokk.au 7 months ago
Forester@pawb.social 7 months ago
They did
The word ish is is any male 13 years old that is not married that has functional equipment
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 7 months ago
No, you are correct.
If it meant men, it would use the same word twice (like the mediocre translation above). It specifically uses a different word to indicate a different meaning. איש at the beginning of the verse, and זכר in the second part of the verse.
Legitimate scholars all agree that this is not referring to the type of gay relationships that generally exist today. They disagree only with the exact meaning that was intended.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 7 months ago
No, I'd have expected them to say ילד if they only wanted to mean man with boy and not man with any form of male.
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The word ילד would be insufficient. It does not include נער, or עלם, which would be the more likely scenario (not to mention עול, which would be unthinkable). זכר is the more obvious choice.
Forester@pawb.social 7 months ago
You really are missing the forrest by staring at trees.
The key context between ish zachar and yéled is that an ish is of mental and sexual maturity, an ish is of sexual maturity and a yélid is neither.
So if a zachar is off limits for being too young it’s implied so is an yélid.
If you don’t understand the context of that I can’t help you.
Gladaed@feddit.org 7 months ago
Also Leviticus is old testament. So this is less relevant/generally superceded by newer text.
callouscomic@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Because the New Testament is better? The NT is especially sexist towards women. Like:
Holy shit. Those are just a few.
But it is true the Old Testament is quite the doozy.
We gotta go back to the good Old Testament for one of my favs:
The later his wife was turned to salt cause she bad (because of course only women do bad things, didn’t yiu know? /s). Then his daughters, who had been spared what you read above, wound up getting their dad drunk and fucking him in a cave to continue the bloodline.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Lot’s offer to the mob was meant to be an allegorical lesson on obligations to guests. Basically a hyperbolic ‘this is how far you have go to protect guests in your house.’ In the modern age it would be a hotel clerk holding off a mob with a shotgun or something like that.
In not sure if the cave incest had a lesson behind it, but the impetus was his daughters thought they were the last people on earth and were trying to restart the population themselves. I don’t think they were meant to be seen as evil for it.
callouscomic@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Tha is for reminding me of one of so many reasons I abandoned the family from my childhood and all their toxic abusive apologists.
Incredible you’re in here defending throwing your own children to mob rape.
bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Only for Christians. I would assume this still holds for Jewish people, as well as some christians who still holds to the Old Testament due to Jesus saying that the old text will not be superceded.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
For reference, here’s that verse, Matthew 5:18:
Thats the KJV, here’s a bunch of other translations:
biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm