Comment on Now I finally get it
Deceptichum@quokk.au 23 hours agoThe 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.
Forester@pawb.social 23 hours ago
They did
The word ish is is any male 13 years old that is not married that has functional equipment
www.sefaria.org/sheets/196414?lang=bi
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 18 hours 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 22 hours 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.
Forester@pawb.social 22 hours 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.
Nikls94@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Okay let me get this straight for my own understanding:
In South Park, the Vatikans said “the bible states it’s not forbidden to fuck young boys” and the original Hebrew wording literally states that this is forbidden.
As in: “stoned shall not be the gay, but the one that gropes children”?
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 17 hours 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.