Yes hello Mr. Atheist sent me and you've got another subscriber! I'd send this to my parents faster than ya could blink if I didn't care about having a place to live.
This is why when people ask me what version of the Bible I read I say as many as I can. There is so much changed with different translations and interpretations. Thank you for putting this out into the world. I did learn something from this video.
If God is real and all knowing and all powerful. Like a G would be and wrote you a love letter. B.asic i.nstructions b.efore l.eaving e.arth would be important. So important to you that once changed you will never see God again and now well we are doomed. We have been destroyed by men with features and ink. They have made the plan of God null and void. Oh my what will God do now that His entire plan has been destroyed and His son hung on a cross and it was for nothing. Don't worry I don't believe that men or the devil can't fool God otherwise He is apparently not God. Uncommon Sense/Out
I love this video, as a closeted bisexual and a devoted follower of Christ I can appreciate this very much. It is hard for me to come out because of my religion. I used to pray to God to fix me but after watching this I've realized that I've been foolish, God loves me just the way I am no matter who I'm dating!!!!
@@Ghirbo04 You just have to accept the fact that same-sex attraction is intrinsic to some people just like left-handedness is, so what does that mean to you? If you continue to insist that homosexuality is sin then you'll have to say that same-sex attraction is sin too just like that Paul says in Romans 1:26 when he said "For this reason God gave them up to shameful desires." That means you'll have to conclude that Paul was on the same page as Augustine and John Calvin that some are predestined to the infernal place. Or you can reevaluate your opinion on homosexuality, and on the Genesis and Leviticus passages, and on Paul, taking a keen look at the relationships between David and Johnathan, the Centurion and his cherished slave boy, and Jesus and Lazarus/John the beloved disciple, and also at that incident recorded in Mark 14:51-52, where Jesus was caught at 4 AM in a public garden with a nearly naked teenage boy or young man whom the police also tried to arrest. Clearly they were confident that the two were guilty of some homosexual transgression, even if they were confidently wrong.
@@EdwardM-t8p i am a male. i have male friends. i love them very much, i hug them when i meet them and thats good, love is good. however, sexual love or attachment is strictly adressed and condemned bith in the new and old testament. just as jesus loved his disciples and lazarus his friend, i love my own friends and thats what god wants. God created love and the perversion of love as in the practice of homosexuality is a sin and is hated by god. you can choose who you love and hate and i believe in the almighty God who can change any corrupt view that society and corrupt churches put in the back of any man or woman. twisting the bible to make sinful desires non condemnable is evil and i wouldn’t risk anything close to this. i pray the creator of this video, lgbt churches and all people deceived by these lies come to christ -as for the naked child- (who btw wasnt “found alone with jesus”) possibility 1 when jesus was with the aposles the night before dying and the soldiers came, it is believed that by the saying the words “i am” and when pushing the soldiers aside with those words as it is written, the power of his name made a resurrection of one of the graves in the near area as is is discovered that thr ghestimani garden is places above a ancied burial site which would explain the anonimity and burial cloth of the man\child. possibility 2 choice of words in third person that mark used like that some other apostes use like in gospel of john when he refers to himself as the “disciple who jesus loved”
I'm Jewish, I'm Israeli, I study bible at school for about seven years now, in Hebrew, and you just made me realize the when people say genesis they are not talking about a book from the new testament, but the first book of the bible. In Hebrew we call it Bereshit and I just didn't understand the connection. I'm very smart, I know. Intelligent, too.
The person you mentioned who wrote a paper on homosexuality being originally condoned, is he the only person who says this? Does he say how he knows that? Also what about the other laws mentioned in that chp did they also originally say something else? Where can I get a hold of that information. Also what about the other areas of the OT that speak against it, was that part changed also?
This "new discovery" appears to be utter nonsense. It is likely just another closet homosexual's attempt at changing societal perceptions through fraudulent academic inquiry. I highly doubt that any honest research was conducted in the processes of the determination outlined in this video. I don't buy it.
@mandellorian Lmao. I should go to Martin Luther (a defiler of the bible), read his adulterated abomination of a bible, and then I should read the German translation. You're kidding, right? Hahahahahahaha! Don't make me laugh.
@@mikep11218 Martin Luther wrote in German, so you obviously missed the point. That said, there's no reason Martin Luther should be considered any more of an authority than any other translator, and good reason he should be considered less, especially regarding the Old Testament (he was very anti-Semitic).
This actually makes me feel better about myself now... but man do I wish I could show this to me 10 years ago. That poor kid was suicidal with grief over going against God. All because of this scripture (and my conservative family).
I'm sorry you fell for this. In order to say the Bible condoned homosexuality you would have to assume that the Bible was only meant for men and women could just do whatever they want. Do not have sex with your uncle. Is it saying only if you are a man or is it telling women to not have sex with your uncle. Sheesh
@@sirchad9443 The writers of the Bible only wrote for men. Women did not matter - they had little power and were discouraged from education (as Islam still does). The language of the Bible indicates this quite clearly - just have a casual read through some of the early Bible chapters. This attitude to women in most religions still exists.
@@Fomites you have fallen for the atheist communist propaganda . What you said only sounds like it makes sense. You obviously don't know how to read the Bible and can only know how it has been misinterpreted by religious leaders and propagandists.
@@Fomites you already misinterpreted what I said. What is wrong with you to think Muslim woman can do and act however they please takes crazy to a new level. In Islam woman how so many rules put on them. Please do not reply unless you can do it without sounding like a moron again.
I had to look at Leviticus 18 again after seeing this video. Every single time it mentions a male relative it corrects itself and refers to his wife instead. Even if that female is condemned just one sentence later! 😂
1. Dershowitz is stating something that is not there, actually was when other interpretations are possible. It could have been understood that not sleeping with male relatives was intended for females, and not sleeping with female relatives was meant for males, or simply that they were ruling out all family relations to the first and second generations removed. Even in your cartoon you have not said ANYTHING to make homosexual relations allowed or "condoned." 2. This is important because we DO have explicit rules for homosexual relations in the Mesopotamian texts of the time. 3. All scholarship has to include the alternate theories and not doing so here suggests silly click bait. 4. As others have said, at least provide some argument about why Jewish priests at some point DID condemn homosexuality. --You should clarify you are simplifying and summarizing ONE article and exactly what that means in scholarship. And you should give a little back story of the author because obviously one suspects a lot of implicit bias in his own mind which we always factor in to analyzing scholarship.
What difference does it make when you see the elephant in the room, which is that the early Hebrews selected your god from a roster of local gods, and customized 'him' to meet their ambitions, one of which was to be proclaimed 'his chosen people', which, to them, gave them license to kill. Another was to have 'his' heavenly sanction on their claim that the land of Canaan belonged to them for all time. They claimed that this 'god' required them to slaughter every inhabitant of a city they had conquered. You know the story. The Pentateuch is horse shit, man. A complete fiction.
You're accusing the author the referenced article of implicit bias whilst overlooking your own which was gifted to you from Paul or an erroneous interpretation of his opinion on homosexuality. He said he was a Pharisee so he could have been like the Rabbis who wrote the Talmud b Sanhedrin 52b which focuses on homosexual intercourse and anal intercourse between two opposite sex partners.
Nothing surprises me with the changing nature of Israelite identity down through the centuries - amazing video guys. Understanding written language forms is difficult when they presented to be read and understood based on 20th/21st century evangelical Christian presuppositions. It's great to have this work be done to clear that away. Thanks for your efforts. :)
I still hold to this. Reading the bible as it is in English misses the meaning of the original, despite the prayerful and scholarly efforts of translators. BUT if you understand biblical Hebrew it can be edifying and instructive to take into account the historical context that the authors were in. Michael Heiser is epic on this principle.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are _missing_ from the Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls. And the "friendship" between David and Johnathan depicted in 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1 is clearly a homoerotic relationship.
Another good video to watch about how the Bible was written and edited through time is Trey the Explainer's "What's the Deal with the Nephilim?" Im glad this topic was covered in the same accuracy as well. This was a great intro to how the Bible was really written.
What fact? he has given no evidence apart from articles from some guy who again has no evidence. People will do anything to cover up the fucked up shit that is in the bible. It condemns homosexuality clear as day. You are all deluded and desperate, can't face the truth so shit like this gets floated about. So sad
I feel like this can/should be arranged better. It’s missing a clarification of the source material for the statement about the original text condoning homosexuality, and the way the statements are ordered makes it sound like preaching without fully substantiating the conclusions. If possible, I think it would be very worthwhile to redo and reupload this video so it isn’t easily dismissed as armchair criticism.
Hi Dr. Josh, Interesting argument. But it will be a tough one to make with most Christians and Jews, who will generally accept the text of the Bible as-is, and resist scholarly efforts to reconstruct or deconstruct it. A stronger argument, I think, is to put the Bible's prohibitions on men having sex with men (it contains no clear statement about women having sex with women) in their cultural context. Essentially all male same-sex sex in the ancient world was of an unequal or outright exploitative nature, of a sort that is generally condemned in liberal societies today as well. Same-sex sex between people of equal status rarely happened, and if it did, it was frowned upon or made illegal even in cultures that were accepting of same-sex sex. The Hebrew word _toebah_ used to condemn men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 carries the connotation of something that is ritually unclean or culturally taboo. The traditional translations of "abominable" or "detestable" don't fully convey the sense of the Hebrew. This also suggests that the prohibition of male same-sex sex in the Torah, which was later echoed in Paul, is based on cultural issues, and should be read in that light. Of course, you're never going to convince Christian fundamentalists. They are blind leaders of the blind. But for Christians and Jews of a more open mindset, this provides a pathway to understanding and even accepting the Bible's prohibition on men having sex with men _in the ways it was commonly practiced in those ancient cultures,_ while also understanding that the Bible is not talking about today's practice of same-sex marriage between men (and women) of equal status.
male-on-female sex in the ancient world was far more exploitative than traditional pederasty and involved the same age gaps and far, far starker power dynamics. so i don't buy those explanations.
@joshridinger3407 There is zero need for that comparison. The context discussed was explicitly restricted to male-male sex, so that information gives no reason to reject the point that was made.
@@joshridinger3407 The idea that male-female sex was "exploitative" is anachronistic in applying today's ideas of gender equality to a time in which gender equality did not exist. Men were considered naturally higher in status than women. A man penetrating a woman was "natural" because the man was of higher status, and the woman of lower status. The problem with male-male sex was that in Israelite society, all men were considered to be of equal status under the law, from king right on down to beggar. The law was God's law, and no man had any higher status than any other man under God's law. This meant that in Israelite society, for a man to penetrate another man was to violate the cultural norm that no man was of higher status than any other man. A man penetrating another man made the one who penetrated of higher status than the one who was penetrated. It reduced the penetrated man to the lower status of a woman, which was considered "unnatural." This, in a nutshell, is why a man penetrating a woman did not violate cultural norms, but a man penetrating another man did. Once again, this applies specifically to Israelite society. Most of the surrounding cultures had no such norm that all men were equal under God's law.
@@leewoofenden "The idea that male-female sex was "exploitative" is anachronistic in applying today's ideas of gender equality to a time in which gender equality did not exist." this is a non-sequitur. it's like claiming that the idea that slavery is exploitative is based on modern ideas about equality. sex was seen as exploitative by nature, and it was a woman's place to be exploited by men, just as it was a slave's place to be exploited by their master. but that wasn't the (whole) reason male-on-male sex was prohibited, because in that case the penetrated man would be seen as a victim of a crime, to be made whole, rather than be executed along with the penetrator. sometimes societies simply acquire taboos that have no further explanation than some sheltered priest's disgust reflex. "The problem with male-male sex was that in Israelite society, all men were considered to be of equal status under the law, from king right on down to beggar." that's not true. in fact that's a blatant contradiction. a king is unequal to a beggar by definition.
@@joshridinger3407 Read the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. You will find references to a man ruling over his wife (as in Genesis 3:16), to a woman calling her husband "my lord" (as in Genesis 18:12), to a wife submitting to her husband (as in Ephesians 5:22), and so on. But you will not find a reference to a husband exploiting his wife. Not from the mouth of God, not from the mouth of a husband, not from the mouth of a wife. That's just not how people in those days thought of the relationship between man and woman. That's the anachronistic part. Some argument could be made that masters exploited their slaves, though even that relationship was not what many people today think of when they think of slaves. Many slaves accepted their status in the culture, and had no interest in changing it. See, for example, Exodus 21:2-6. Some slaves even achieved fairly high status in their culture. Slavery was not all whips and oppression. For the most part, it was simply an accepted part of nearly every culture on the face of the earth until very recent times. Obviously unacceptable by today's standards, but not by the standards of those cultures. However, even if an argument could be made that slavery is inherently exploitative, the idea that husbands exploited their wives in the cultures of the Bible is a modern anachronism that misunderstands the entire nature of the relationship between man and woman in those ancient cultures. Ironically, such a view actually devalues women compared to their actual roles in the Bible. For the most part, people were quite pragmatic about sex. A husband wanted sex with his wife or wives because that's how he sired sons as heirs, not to mention daughters that could fetch a bride price. A wife wanted sex with her husband because bearing sons, and secondarily daughters, was the primary way she gained honor and respect in her community and culture, not to mention having children to care for her in her old age. And there were many other benefits to both father and mother. Read the story in Genesis 29-30 of Leah and Rachel vying with one another for their husband Jacob's sexual favors. That should disabuse any objective person of the notion that women in those days thought of sex as exploitative. Marriage may not have been the equal relationship many people aspire to today. But it wasn't "exploitative." It worked quite well in those cultures, and it was accepted as normal and natural by both men and women. Not understanding this will result in misunderstanding the entire nature of gender relations in the ancient cultures of the Bible. Recognizing that sex was seen as a dominant person penetrating a submissive person is not at all the same as the people of those cultures seeing that relationship as exploitative. In those cultures, men and women were seen as naturally dominant and submissive, respectively, in relation to one another. Both men and women accepted this arrangement without question, and worked within it to achieve their own goals and desires, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so successfully. As an example, consider the story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24 (though it is really the story of Rebekah). While her family dithered and delayed, Rebekah immediately accepted Isaac sight-unseen as her husband. She saw an opportunity to marry a good and wealthy man, and she took it. The subsequent stories of their interactions show that Rebekah was a strong-minded woman very much able to assert her will-for example, in aiding and abetting her favored son Jacob in supplanting Isaac's favored son Esau to become Isaac's primary heir, and ultimately the one through whom the lineage of the biblical Patriarchs would be traced. If anything, in this marriage Rebekah exploited Isaac. But once again, that's just not how people thought of it in those days. Isaac came to accept Jacob as the stronger of his two sons. In the end, he willingly gave him his blessing as the rightful heir to his father Abraham's promise and covenant with God (see Genesis 28:1-4) There are many more instances in the Bible narrative of women and wives asserting their will, and having it accepted by men and husbands. Just one more example: Sarah, Abraham's wife, also flexed her muscle to ensure that her biological son Isaac became Abraham's primary heir, not Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn son. Abraham accepted her will, which was also God's will. (see Genesis 21:1-21). It was the wives who ensured that the biblical Patriarchs would be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not some other possible lineage through Ishmael or Esau. Reducing all of that complexity in biblical gender relations to the relationship between man and woman being "exploitative" is indeed an utterly anachronistic framing of ancient cultures based on modern theories that just don't apply to those cultures. It misses all the richness of women's often decisive position and influence, which starts with Eve herself and continues throughout the entire length of the Bible narrative.
It might be a worthwhile exercise to engage with Dr. Dershowitz's article directly; it seems like you are dismissing his argument out of hand.@@micahhenley589
[My English version of this may be lousy] A novice (N) is tasked by the monastery elder (E) to make a copy of their monastic order's creed. The novice notices that the book is fairly new. N: Should I verify the copy with the original? E: This copy is the same as the original, as were all the previous copies. N: But what if someone made a mistake? E: ... Fine. It will take a couple of hours, but I should dig up the original. Two hours pass. Four hours pass. The novice decides to check on the elder and finds him crying in the basement. E: It was "celebrate"... not "celibate"... [I am not sure whether the joke can be factually correct, because it assumes Orthodox (lenient) attitude towards marriage of people of the Church, but has an untranslatable English play of words inserted. Perhaps it's British, but I heard it in Russian.]
A former Religion teacher of mine (our Religion lessons weren't ever "This is how it is", more "this is how the bible said it, what do you say? Is this up to date?") explained the leviticus part like this: The original hebrew word for "woman" could also be used as "wife". And the verse is likely about military rules from the wording, so basically it's "Even if you are in war and could have sex with one of the other soldiers to relieve urges, don't. You would cheat on your wife, and you shouldn't do that."
there is no concept of cheating on your wife in the old tstament. adultery is never an offense against a woman, it is an offense against her husband or betrothed.
@@eoincampbell1584 that doesn't really make sense. boys in traditioal pederastic relationships were the same age as girls when they were "ideally" married off, and both participants in the act are condemned, so it's not about protecting the supposed underage boy.
@@joshridinger3407 I didn't say it was about protecting the boy. It just shows that the condemnation in the bible may have specifically been a condemnation of pederastic relationships, rather than all homosexuality between men. Girls *were* carted off at young ages, but it's fully possible this was simply a double standard. It's also important to note that a lot of Leviticus' rules are essentially distinctions between the Hebrew culture and nearby enemies: *They* worship animal idols, *they* eat these kinds of foods, *they* wear clothes of mixed fabrics, *they* practice pederasty, *they* have tatoos, *they* wear their hair like this; so *we* don't do any of that.
I'm not sure you can say that this passage in bible has been changed as you don't have the original document of Leviticus.....or any. It could have been 'Chinese whispers' when it was copied
I think the "don't sleep with your father and uncle" isn't reason enough to say that the verse is meant to include everyone else. Its like saying "saying I love you to your sister means you hate everyone else."
Excellent! Though I never had the proof (or the knowledge of the language used), I always felt there was something amiss in the Pentateuch, beyond the obvious contradictions (eg two "wives" for Adam, one of whom is quickly forgotten, then generally ignored even by fundies - and whom he didn't _actually_ marry in the way modern people insist is *the* correct way [with a ceremony and oaths sworn], without any evidence to support their point). I think it was because of the well-known contradictions, such as the above, that I deeply suspected there to be more which were not spoken about because they are either unknown due to the sort of outright change of words as in this video, or were deemed to be "harmless". The latter, of course, may have been harmless in and of themselves, but they did (and still do) allow preachers of the Abrahamic religions to pick and choose their own paths through the texts, thereby encouraging, and occasionally causing, the schisms in all three religions. Essentially, they have potentially been the foundation for the deaths and persecutions of countless millions over the centuries. In this case, who can measure the harm done to LGBTQ+ people worldwide and for at least 2 millennia. The thought of that is just gut-wrenchingly horrific. As in Lynne Truss's _Eats Shoots and Leaves_ (a hilarious but also accurate book of points in grammar, the heading using the punchline of the old joke about a hungry, randy and murderous panda), even something as apparently innocuous as a missed comma can cause a lot of trouble! It acts as a reminder that there really isn't any mistake in written language which doesn't have the potential to cause, at the very least, red faces 😳 😁. This channel is criminally undersubscribed. Going to share this link with my handful of Twitter pals and will ask them to share it with theirs. I only hope we can get some more people who are missing out on very fascinating information.
So why didn’t he show the changes made? He shows the passage we now see but doesn’t show the “original” passage…why? Because no changes were made. Leviticus isn’t the only mention of homosexuality in the Bible. It’s also in Deuteronomy 22:5, Romans 1:26-33 and Corinthians 6:9-11. The Bible has not changed. People are trying to make it change to match their own lives. If you want to know the truth read the Bible…don’t listen to man. The back of the Bible has a section of subjects that will take you right to where you want to go if you only want to see a specific subject. Don’t just listen to people…read and decide for yourself. You need to investigate and have discernment in all things biblical.. Your life is at stake.
How does that condone homosexuality? This is equivalent to saying to not murder your mother intrinsically means that you can murder anyone else. Just because they didn't stipulate everything under the sun doesn't mean it is permitted.
@@DigitalHammurabi I do not see how you apparently have proven that the bible condoned homosexuality, even though that is what you plainly state in your video.
That's why I don't trust the Bible - it was rewritten and translated over and over ...there are contradictions and so on. I seek God in my heart and I believe that LOVE is not a sin and never will be !
I understand your point, and I do agree that the Old Testament has been edited, but I believe your conclusion here bypasses another potential solution. When the law says, "You can have sex with women, but not *these* women," could it not be that it's talking to men? And when it says, "You can have sex with men, but not *these* men," could it not be that it's talking to women? Why automatically assume that these are same-sex references? We see a number of heterosexual unions in the Pentateuch, including adulterous and incestuous situations, but we never see homosexual unions among any named persons. As I recall, prior to Leviticus, we only have one situation where homosexuality is mentioned, and even then only obliquely (the men of Sodom). The conclusion you advocate here would also seem to be negated by the provision "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman," or do you feel that this was a later edit as well?
hello! im sorry if by any means i come off as a bother but could you please give me the sources on the claim that leviticus has been changed? id really like to have them for a document im making
Great video . . . . very interesting stuff. Thank y'all so much for linking the paper so it's easily accessible. I just downloaded said paper and am excited to read it!! :-) Oh, BTW . . . . Mr. Atheist sent me!! (edit: sub'ed!!)
Thank you very much. i'm bisexual and proud. my dad always tells me it's a sin but i know it's not a choice or sin. thank you again for speaking the truth god bless you and amen.... ❤🙌
Look into Paul the False Apostle. He wrote 13 books to control the church after the time of Jesus. And if you read the book of Jeremiah it is clear the Jews were not following God's law from the time they left Egypt. Here lies the false "dog"ma dog is backward from god and god made clear the jews and their vain law was not his and they went backwards and not forwards.
Friends, it makes no sense to use the Bible as a guidebook. It's a collection of historical texts that come from different places and times and have been edited, revised and translated.
Indeed, which is why we have a series of videos explaining textual criticism, and various others looking at the Bible from an academic, rather than faith-based, perspective.
@@DigitalHammurabi You're very welcome. It always makes me sad when videos full of information, common sense, and a focus towards actually *understanding* the things you swear by in this life are overlooked.
I tried this and was told that today’s “version” of god’s perfect word is what counts. Do they even listen to what they say? Only if it fits. The delusion is all encompassing.
Umm... So the thing that I find in your argument is that you're 'telling ' us what Hebrew Bible said. Not presenting any proof of it whatsoever, nor mentioning the precise Hebrew words that condoned homosexuality. Proof as for precise or key words that would add more fundament; I understand that maybe a whole verse would not be practical for a TH-cam video but words wouldn't do any wrong. It hears as if summarizing or wrapping up what the Hebrew text said and then proceeding to tell us that the Bible Hebrew text said x or y thing. This is an opinion although meant not to be offensive in any way or rude man -- just wanted to clarify before y'all jump on me
You’re quite correct, and thank you for the comment, but This video is really only intended to provide a summary of Dr. Dershowitz’s article on the subject. The link to the paper should be in the description if you’d like to read it yourself 😁 If we ever do a general video on homosexuality and the Bible then we’ll endeavor to include that linguistic information!
Your argument is flawed. Your saying that by condemning Y then X is condoned. Or, by not explicitly condemning X then X is condoned. Neither of these points is valid and therefore weakens your argument. Your evidence only shows that X is not addressed. The fact that X is not addressed is a valid point in that it implies that X was not an issue worth including. That is the proper basis of your argument. Personally, I dismiss the bible outright. I don't see any point in debating what a work of fiction does or doesn't say. Mr. Atheist sent me.
Thank you for the input! I think the argument is more complex than that, but it is hard to put the subtleties in a short video. We are really happy to have you with us!!
@@DigitalHammurabi No doubt. Just advising caution. Your opponents will attack every little detail you present if you give them a chance. Keep up the fight.
+Ralph Johnson I agree. Maybe this video didn't represent the original argument all that well, I haven't looked into it so I can't say. But going with what is presented here, indeed the conclusion that the bible condoned homosexuality originally because it was not specific about not doing so, would be a logical fallacy. If a manufacturer of microwave ovens puts in it's operation manual that you should not put dogs into it to dry them, but says nothing about cats, It doesn't logically follow that it's fine to put cats in it. That's the type of fallacy being made here.
Except that No You must not לֹ֥א (lō) Adverb - Negative particle Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no lie תִשְׁכַּ֖ב (ṯiš·kaḇ) Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular with וְאֶ֨ת־ (wə·’eṯ-) Conjunctive waw | Preposition a man זָכָ֔ר (zā·ḵār) Noun - masculine singular as with מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י (miš·kə·ḇê) Noun - masculine plural construct a woman; אִשָּׁ֑ה (’iš·šāh) Noun - feminine singular Strong's Hebrew 802: Woman, wife, female that הִֽוא׃ (hî) Pronoun - third person feminine singular [is] an abomination. תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) Noun - feminine singular As a person who likes history I debuk any claim athiest or thiest that is historicaly incurrate Since the complete Leviticus of 450 bc it's even by 540 bc I wonder why he says many years as the book of Leviticus was not completed in the time of Moses jewsih tradition was oral for most part ( So Much so that Even the common Jew memorized whole chapters) and there are a few passages in paypurs But not even one * credited * historian agrees that Leviticus 18:22 was altered We like facts don't we ? So .... Where is it Or is this just speculation? Like i said I could be wrong But still it's like muslims saying the gospel has been corrputed Or young Earth creationist saying the Earth is 6000 year's old Both untrue on Is big a historical inaccuracie And the other a dumb anti paleontology or geology belief Sadly the historical data does not agree with your video speculation but oh well it was still interesting I guess
Hm, i am not here from mr atheist, i decided i wanted to know stuff about Akkadian and Sumerian at like... 1AM and you were recommended. Best 1AM decision ever
Biblical scholar IDAN Dershowitz is from the University of Potsdam. Legal scholar ALAN Dershowitz is from Harvard University. PS: Thanks for the links!
I fail to see how the original text condones homosexuality. Yes, it fails to specifically condemn it, but so do most other passages.. It's almost as if you're claiming that anything not specifically forbidden is officially condoned.
the sad part is in the bible when jesus mentioned that god only meant for man to be with woman and thats the only marriage that exists under the eyes if god.
We’re very happy to have you, and I’m glad that the video is helpful ☺️ I find that so much of the Bible that is used to attack other people is used dishonestly or in ignorance...I personally don’t think the Bible should be used to dictate modern life, but hopefully work like this will help others who see the Bible in a different light to me.
I can’t remember where but I remember reading an article by a professor in ethics and something about religion and it said that gay sex was not ‘I love you’ back then, it was ‘I own you’.
"For this cause God gave them up unto *vile affections:* for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." --Romans 1
Digital Hammurabi I always felt like something was off with the Bible in some of the literature, but i could never figure it out. At least now I know. Thank you.
I would, of course, argue that I am not. However, I would be interested in the critiques that you have with the arguments that Dr. Dershowitz has made.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
Do you have any videos on romans 1, Matthew 5 and 6 and other bible passages that seem to condemn homosexuality, lust, pornography, etc?
No he isn’t. He couldn’t even show the change he states happened. People just WANT him to be right….doesn’t mean it is. There are other passages to explain.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
Mr atheist sent me
Welcome! We’re very glad to have you 😁
Me too!
Myself as well.
Same
Same
I don't know who this Mr. Atheist guy is.
But I got sent by Mr. Atheist.
are you saying the Bible was ripped and stitched? Shocked I am shooketh at these accusations.
but is sounds credible, I should watch more Carrier.
I know right. Surely not, the Bible is so correct and accurate after all.
I urge you to also look up Dr. Robert M. Price on YT, on YT channel MythVision, and his books.
Carrier is a clown and is laughed at by all legitimate scholars. Do you want to go ahead and defend his cosmic sperm bank theory?
Here from Mr Atheist's secret link! Great video. Subscribed!
Allison C Fantastic!! We are so glad you are here!! Let us know if we can do anything!
Yes hello Mr. Atheist sent me and you've got another subscriber! I'd send this to my parents faster than ya could blink if I didn't care about having a place to live.
Wonderful!!! Thank you for coming!!!
brought by a mr atheist mention
Awesome!! He is the best! Thanks for coming!!
Same
Lolz me too- love me some pumpkin daddy
Same here
Was originally @Paulogia for me
This is why when people ask me what version of the Bible I read I say as many as I can. There is so much changed with different translations and interpretations. Thank you for putting this out into the world. I did learn something from this video.
Do you recommend the Hebrew Bible or any other religious books?
If God is real and all knowing and all powerful. Like a G would be and wrote you a love letter. B.asic i.nstructions b.efore l.eaving e.arth would be important. So important to you that once changed you will never see God again and now well we are doomed. We have been destroyed by men with features and ink. They have made the plan of God null and void. Oh my what will God do now that His entire plan has been destroyed and His son hung on a cross and it was for nothing. Don't worry I don't believe that men or the devil can't fool God otherwise He is apparently not God. Uncommon Sense/Out
I love this video, as a closeted bisexual and a devoted follower of Christ I can appreciate this very much. It is hard for me to come out because of my religion. I used to pray to God to fix me but after watching this I've realized that I've been foolish, God loves me just the way I am no matter who I'm dating!!!!
yes, God loves you very much but Jesus cant get you into heaven if you die with in this sin, please reconsider, its your eternity at stake
@@Ghirbo04 You just have to accept the fact that same-sex attraction is intrinsic to some people just like left-handedness is, so what does that mean to you?
If you continue to insist that homosexuality is sin then you'll have to say that same-sex attraction is sin too just like that Paul says in Romans 1:26 when he said "For this reason God gave them up to shameful desires." That means you'll have to conclude that Paul was on the same page as Augustine and John Calvin that some are predestined to the infernal place.
Or you can reevaluate your opinion on homosexuality, and on the Genesis and Leviticus passages, and on Paul, taking a keen look at the relationships between David and Johnathan, the Centurion and his cherished slave boy, and Jesus and Lazarus/John the beloved disciple, and also at that incident recorded in Mark 14:51-52, where Jesus was caught at 4 AM in a public garden with a nearly naked teenage boy or young man whom the police also tried to arrest. Clearly they were confident that the two were guilty of some homosexual transgression, even if they were confidently wrong.
@@EdwardM-t8p i am a male. i have male friends. i love them very much, i hug them when i meet them and thats good, love is good. however, sexual love or attachment is strictly adressed and condemned bith in the new and old testament. just as jesus loved his disciples and lazarus his friend, i love my own friends and thats what god wants. God created love and the perversion of love as in the practice of homosexuality is a sin and is hated by god. you can choose who you love and hate and i believe in the almighty God who can change any corrupt view that society and corrupt churches put in the back of any man or woman. twisting the bible to make sinful desires non condemnable is evil and i wouldn’t risk anything close to this. i pray the creator of this video, lgbt churches and all people deceived by these lies come to christ
-as for the naked child-
(who btw wasnt “found alone with jesus”)
possibility 1
when jesus was with the aposles the night before dying and the soldiers came, it is believed that by the saying the words “i am” and when pushing the soldiers aside with those words as it is written, the power of his name made a resurrection of one of the graves in the near area as is is discovered that thr ghestimani garden is places above a ancied burial site which would explain the anonimity and burial cloth of the man\child.
possibility 2
choice of words in third person that mark used like that some other apostes use like in gospel of john when he refers to himself as the “disciple who jesus loved”
Wow.. so if that person never changed that bible I wouldn’t have cried about liking girls so much. :/
Either way, the bible says marriage is for men and women, anything outside of marriage is sexual immorality and fornication, both are a sin.
@@55runescaper Fuck off you homophobe
@@55runescaperYou are a garbage human for preying upon a human’s pain. Have you no shame?
@@55runescaper - Ah! You did NOT watch the video and are therefore wrong.
I'm Jewish, I'm Israeli, I study bible at school for about seven years now, in Hebrew, and you just made me realize the when people say genesis they are not talking about a book from the new testament, but the first book of the bible. In Hebrew we call it Bereshit and I just didn't understand the connection. I'm very smart, I know. Intelligent, too.
Well that’s great that you know now 😊
Do bereshit in the woods?
The person you mentioned who wrote a paper on homosexuality being originally condoned, is he the only person who says this? Does he say how he knows that? Also what about the other laws mentioned in that chp did they also originally say something else? Where can I get a hold of that information. Also what about the other areas of the OT that speak against it, was that part changed also?
This "new discovery" appears to be utter nonsense. It is likely just another closet homosexual's attempt at changing societal perceptions through fraudulent academic inquiry. I highly doubt that any honest research was conducted in the processes of the determination outlined in this video. I don't buy it.
@@mikep11218 I don't buy it either but if there is some information I would love to read it, see it hear it
@mandellorian Lmao. I should go to Martin Luther (a defiler of the bible), read his adulterated abomination of a bible, and then I should read the German translation. You're kidding, right? Hahahahahahaha! Don't make me laugh.
@@mikep11218 Martin Luther wrote in German, so you obviously missed the point.
That said, there's no reason Martin Luther should be considered any more of an authority than any other translator, and good reason he should be considered less, especially regarding the Old Testament (he was very anti-Semitic).
@mandellorian thats very interesting how did you find this information can I ask
This actually makes me feel better about myself now... but man do I wish I could show this to me 10 years ago. That poor kid was suicidal with grief over going against God. All because of this scripture (and my conservative family).
I'm sorry you fell for this. In order to say the Bible condoned homosexuality you would have to assume that the Bible was only meant for men and women could just do whatever they want. Do not have sex with your uncle. Is it saying only if you are a man or is it telling women to not have sex with your uncle. Sheesh
@@sirchad9443 The writers of the Bible only wrote for men. Women did not matter - they had little power and were discouraged from education (as Islam still does). The language of the Bible indicates this quite clearly - just have a casual read through some of the early Bible chapters. This attitude to women in most religions still exists.
I'm sad to learn this. You are not alone in this experience. Religious belief abuses children.
@@Fomites you have fallen for the atheist communist propaganda . What you said only sounds like it makes sense. You obviously don't know how to read the Bible and can only know how it has been misinterpreted by religious leaders and propagandists.
@@Fomites you already misinterpreted what I said.
What is wrong with you to think Muslim woman can do and act however they please takes crazy to a new level. In Islam woman how so many rules put on them.
Please do not reply unless you can do it without sounding like a moron again.
I'm a panromantic Catholic and this video made me so happy. You're doing God's work my friend!!!
Well I'm just beyond glad to watch Mr.Atheist! This is really nice to know, thank you!
I had to look at Leviticus 18 again after seeing this video. Every single time it mentions a male relative it corrects itself and refers to his wife instead. Even if that female is condemned just one sentence later! 😂
1. Dershowitz is stating something that is not there, actually was when other interpretations are possible. It could have been understood that not sleeping with male relatives was intended for females, and not sleeping with female relatives was meant for males, or simply that they were ruling out all family relations to the first and second generations removed. Even in your cartoon you have not said ANYTHING to make homosexual relations allowed or "condoned."
2. This is important because we DO have explicit rules for homosexual relations in the Mesopotamian texts of the time.
3. All scholarship has to include the alternate theories and not doing so here suggests silly click bait.
4. As others have said, at least provide some argument about why Jewish priests at some point DID condemn homosexuality.
--You should clarify you are simplifying and summarizing ONE article and exactly what that means in scholarship. And you should give a little back story of the author because obviously one suspects a lot of implicit bias in his own mind which we always factor in to analyzing scholarship.
good points!
What difference does it make when you see the elephant in the room, which is that the early Hebrews selected your god from a roster of local gods, and customized 'him' to meet their ambitions, one of which was to be proclaimed 'his chosen people', which, to them, gave them license to kill. Another was to have 'his' heavenly sanction on their claim that the land of Canaan belonged to them for all time. They claimed that this 'god' required them to slaughter every inhabitant of a city they had conquered. You know the story. The Pentateuch is horse shit, man. A complete fiction.
@@therealignis - If you're not simply a religious homophobe, what is your competing theory?
You're accusing the author the referenced article of implicit bias whilst overlooking your own which was gifted to you from Paul or an erroneous interpretation of his opinion on homosexuality. He said he was a Pharisee so he could have been like the Rabbis who wrote the Talmud b Sanhedrin 52b which focuses on homosexual intercourse and anal intercourse between two opposite sex partners.
Nothing surprises me with the changing nature of Israelite identity down through the centuries - amazing video guys. Understanding written language forms is difficult when they presented to be read and understood based on 20th/21st century evangelical Christian presuppositions. It's great to have this work be done to clear that away. Thanks for your efforts. :)
I still hold to this. Reading the bible as it is in English misses the meaning of the original, despite the prayerful and scholarly efforts of translators. BUT if you understand biblical Hebrew it can be edifying and instructive to take into account the historical context that the authors were in. Michael Heiser is epic on this principle.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are _missing_ from the Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls. And the "friendship" between David and Johnathan depicted in 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1 is clearly a homoerotic relationship.
Tho Mr. Atheists says to say he sent me, I actually first saw you on the non sequitur show, so...
LoL!
Subbed!
Glad to have you 😁 welcome
Amazing!!!! Thank you!!!!
Damn.. I was expecting material/visual evidence of the overwriting mentioned in this video.
Law: do not eat rotten corpses.
4000 years later
Oh, he meant ROTTEN corpses. We can eat fresh ones ...
@Mossy Rock lol, perfect
i mean yeah all meat eaters eat corpses, animal corpses
You are implying incest is equivalent to gayness. Lemme guess, you don’t really understand consent either.
That includes animal corpses!
This was posted a day before my birthday.
Best. Present. Ever.
Mr. Atheist sent me, sup! :)
Hi! Glad to have you 😁
Same
Another good video to watch about how the Bible was written and edited through time is Trey the Explainer's "What's the Deal with the Nephilim?" Im glad this topic was covered in the same accuracy as well. This was a great intro to how the Bible was really written.
Oh, yeah, that was a good video, too. It's really fascinating to see how things get changed and subsequently completely misunderstood over time.
Every pastor or church employee should see this video. Hopefully more research will be done and this fact will spread more.
What fact? he has given no evidence apart from articles from some guy who again has no evidence. People will do anything to cover up the fucked up shit that is in the bible. It condemns homosexuality clear as day. You are all deluded and desperate, can't face the truth so shit like this gets floated about. So sad
The original text is telling girls not to sleep with their father or uncle. It in no way condones homosexuality.
This video is too brief, Christians might want a more in depth explanation.
I feel like this can/should be arranged better. It’s missing a clarification of the source material for the statement about the original text condoning homosexuality, and the way the statements are ordered makes it sound like preaching without fully substantiating the conclusions. If possible, I think it would be very worthwhile to redo and reupload this video so it isn’t easily dismissed as armchair criticism.
Hi Dr. Josh,
Interesting argument. But it will be a tough one to make with most Christians and Jews, who will generally accept the text of the Bible as-is, and resist scholarly efforts to reconstruct or deconstruct it.
A stronger argument, I think, is to put the Bible's prohibitions on men having sex with men (it contains no clear statement about women having sex with women) in their cultural context. Essentially all male same-sex sex in the ancient world was of an unequal or outright exploitative nature, of a sort that is generally condemned in liberal societies today as well. Same-sex sex between people of equal status rarely happened, and if it did, it was frowned upon or made illegal even in cultures that were accepting of same-sex sex.
The Hebrew word _toebah_ used to condemn men having sex with men in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 carries the connotation of something that is ritually unclean or culturally taboo. The traditional translations of "abominable" or "detestable" don't fully convey the sense of the Hebrew. This also suggests that the prohibition of male same-sex sex in the Torah, which was later echoed in Paul, is based on cultural issues, and should be read in that light.
Of course, you're never going to convince Christian fundamentalists. They are blind leaders of the blind. But for Christians and Jews of a more open mindset, this provides a pathway to understanding and even accepting the Bible's prohibition on men having sex with men _in the ways it was commonly practiced in those ancient cultures,_ while also understanding that the Bible is not talking about today's practice of same-sex marriage between men (and women) of equal status.
male-on-female sex in the ancient world was far more exploitative than traditional pederasty and involved the same age gaps and far, far starker power dynamics. so i don't buy those explanations.
@joshridinger3407 There is zero need for that comparison. The context discussed was explicitly restricted to male-male sex, so that information gives no reason to reject the point that was made.
@@joshridinger3407 The idea that male-female sex was "exploitative" is anachronistic in applying today's ideas of gender equality to a time in which gender equality did not exist. Men were considered naturally higher in status than women. A man penetrating a woman was "natural" because the man was of higher status, and the woman of lower status.
The problem with male-male sex was that in Israelite society, all men were considered to be of equal status under the law, from king right on down to beggar. The law was God's law, and no man had any higher status than any other man under God's law.
This meant that in Israelite society, for a man to penetrate another man was to violate the cultural norm that no man was of higher status than any other man. A man penetrating another man made the one who penetrated of higher status than the one who was penetrated. It reduced the penetrated man to the lower status of a woman, which was considered "unnatural."
This, in a nutshell, is why a man penetrating a woman did not violate cultural norms, but a man penetrating another man did.
Once again, this applies specifically to Israelite society. Most of the surrounding cultures had no such norm that all men were equal under God's law.
@@leewoofenden "The idea that male-female sex was "exploitative" is anachronistic in applying today's ideas of gender equality to a time in which gender equality did not exist."
this is a non-sequitur. it's like claiming that the idea that slavery is exploitative is based on modern ideas about equality. sex was seen as exploitative by nature, and it was a woman's place to be exploited by men, just as it was a slave's place to be exploited by their master. but that wasn't the (whole) reason male-on-male sex was prohibited, because in that case the penetrated man would be seen as a victim of a crime, to be made whole, rather than be executed along with the penetrator. sometimes societies simply acquire taboos that have no further explanation than some sheltered priest's disgust reflex.
"The problem with male-male sex was that in Israelite society, all men were considered to be of equal status under the law, from king right on down to beggar."
that's not true. in fact that's a blatant contradiction. a king is unequal to a beggar by definition.
@@joshridinger3407 Read the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. You will find references to a man ruling over his wife (as in Genesis 3:16), to a woman calling her husband "my lord" (as in Genesis 18:12), to a wife submitting to her husband (as in Ephesians 5:22), and so on. But you will not find a reference to a husband exploiting his wife. Not from the mouth of God, not from the mouth of a husband, not from the mouth of a wife. That's just not how people in those days thought of the relationship between man and woman. That's the anachronistic part.
Some argument could be made that masters exploited their slaves, though even that relationship was not what many people today think of when they think of slaves. Many slaves accepted their status in the culture, and had no interest in changing it. See, for example, Exodus 21:2-6. Some slaves even achieved fairly high status in their culture. Slavery was not all whips and oppression. For the most part, it was simply an accepted part of nearly every culture on the face of the earth until very recent times. Obviously unacceptable by today's standards, but not by the standards of those cultures.
However, even if an argument could be made that slavery is inherently exploitative, the idea that husbands exploited their wives in the cultures of the Bible is a modern anachronism that misunderstands the entire nature of the relationship between man and woman in those ancient cultures. Ironically, such a view actually devalues women compared to their actual roles in the Bible.
For the most part, people were quite pragmatic about sex. A husband wanted sex with his wife or wives because that's how he sired sons as heirs, not to mention daughters that could fetch a bride price. A wife wanted sex with her husband because bearing sons, and secondarily daughters, was the primary way she gained honor and respect in her community and culture, not to mention having children to care for her in her old age. And there were many other benefits to both father and mother. Read the story in Genesis 29-30 of Leah and Rachel vying with one another for their husband Jacob's sexual favors. That should disabuse any objective person of the notion that women in those days thought of sex as exploitative.
Marriage may not have been the equal relationship many people aspire to today. But it wasn't "exploitative." It worked quite well in those cultures, and it was accepted as normal and natural by both men and women. Not understanding this will result in misunderstanding the entire nature of gender relations in the ancient cultures of the Bible.
Recognizing that sex was seen as a dominant person penetrating a submissive person is not at all the same as the people of those cultures seeing that relationship as exploitative. In those cultures, men and women were seen as naturally dominant and submissive, respectively, in relation to one another. Both men and women accepted this arrangement without question, and worked within it to achieve their own goals and desires, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so successfully.
As an example, consider the story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24 (though it is really the story of Rebekah). While her family dithered and delayed, Rebekah immediately accepted Isaac sight-unseen as her husband. She saw an opportunity to marry a good and wealthy man, and she took it. The subsequent stories of their interactions show that Rebekah was a strong-minded woman very much able to assert her will-for example, in aiding and abetting her favored son Jacob in supplanting Isaac's favored son Esau to become Isaac's primary heir, and ultimately the one through whom the lineage of the biblical Patriarchs would be traced.
If anything, in this marriage Rebekah exploited Isaac. But once again, that's just not how people thought of it in those days. Isaac came to accept Jacob as the stronger of his two sons. In the end, he willingly gave him his blessing as the rightful heir to his father Abraham's promise and covenant with God (see Genesis 28:1-4)
There are many more instances in the Bible narrative of women and wives asserting their will, and having it accepted by men and husbands. Just one more example: Sarah, Abraham's wife, also flexed her muscle to ensure that her biological son Isaac became Abraham's primary heir, not Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn son. Abraham accepted her will, which was also God's will. (see Genesis 21:1-21). It was the wives who ensured that the biblical Patriarchs would be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not some other possible lineage through Ishmael or Esau.
Reducing all of that complexity in biblical gender relations to the relationship between man and woman being "exploitative" is indeed an utterly anachronistic framing of ancient cultures based on modern theories that just don't apply to those cultures. It misses all the richness of women's often decisive position and influence, which starts with Eve herself and continues throughout the entire length of the Bible narrative.
Mr. Atheist sent me here.
Glad to have you!
Thanks,
It might be a worthwhile exercise to engage with Dr. Dershowitz's article directly; it seems like you are dismissing his argument out of hand.@@micahhenley589
The difference, of course, is that there is linguistic evidence for the former, but no linguistic evidence (that I know of) for the latter.
Have you read the article?
So the Priestly author, the guy who wrote parts of Genesis, Exodus, most of Leviticus, and Numbers, wasn't much of a homophobe after all.
Just stumbled on this and I'm loving your channel so far Josh/Megan.
Thank you so much!
[My English version of this may be lousy] A novice (N) is tasked by the monastery elder (E) to make a copy of their monastic order's creed. The novice notices that the book is fairly new.
N: Should I verify the copy with the original?
E: This copy is the same as the original, as were all the previous copies.
N: But what if someone made a mistake?
E: ... Fine. It will take a couple of hours, but I should dig up the original.
Two hours pass. Four hours pass. The novice decides to check on the elder and finds him crying in the basement.
E: It was "celebrate"... not "celibate"...
[I am not sure whether the joke can be factually correct, because it assumes Orthodox (lenient) attitude towards marriage of people of the Church, but has an untranslatable English play of words inserted. Perhaps it's British, but I heard it in Russian.]
A former Religion teacher of mine (our Religion lessons weren't ever "This is how it is", more "this is how the bible said it, what do you say? Is this up to date?") explained the leviticus part like this:
The original hebrew word for "woman" could also be used as "wife". And the verse is likely about military rules from the wording, so basically it's "Even if you are in war and could have sex with one of the other soldiers to relieve urges, don't. You would cheat on your wife, and you shouldn't do that."
I've also heard that some translations have it as "don't have sex with a boy", as in a rule against pedophilia.
And it doesn’t condone same sex…woman or man. More passages than this in the Bible.
there is no concept of cheating on your wife in the old tstament. adultery is never an offense against a woman, it is an offense against her husband or betrothed.
@@eoincampbell1584 that doesn't really make sense. boys in traditioal pederastic relationships were the same age as girls when they were "ideally" married off, and both participants in the act are condemned, so it's not about protecting the supposed underage boy.
@@joshridinger3407 I didn't say it was about protecting the boy. It just shows that the condemnation in the bible may have specifically been a condemnation of pederastic relationships, rather than all homosexuality between men.
Girls *were* carted off at young ages, but it's fully possible this was simply a double standard.
It's also important to note that a lot of Leviticus' rules are essentially distinctions between the Hebrew culture and nearby enemies: *They* worship animal idols, *they* eat these kinds of foods, *they* wear clothes of mixed fabrics, *they* practice pederasty, *they* have tatoos, *they* wear their hair like this; so *we* don't do any of that.
So does that mean your Aunt and your brother are fair game?
only if theyre hot
only twin brother and only if u record it.
No
lol
Thank you - this is good to know. What other manipulative switcheroos were made to the Bible?
Eve coming from Adam's "rib"
The original Hebrew (i think?) word was closer to "other half" rather than rib, which caused a lot of sexism, obv
refreshing to see the right attitude in seeking truth and example in Love
I'm not sure you can say that this passage in bible has been changed as you don't have the original document of Leviticus.....or any.
It could have been 'Chinese whispers' when it was copied
I think the "don't sleep with your father and uncle" isn't reason enough to say that the verse is meant to include everyone else. Its like saying "saying I love you to your sister means you hate everyone else."
Came here from Mr Atheist, thank you for this video!
Thank you for watching it... and being here!! Let us know if we can help in any way :-)
Excellent! Though I never had the proof (or the knowledge of the language used), I always felt there was something amiss in the Pentateuch, beyond the obvious contradictions (eg two "wives" for Adam, one of whom is quickly forgotten, then generally ignored even by fundies - and whom he didn't _actually_ marry in the way modern people insist is *the* correct way [with a ceremony and oaths sworn], without any evidence to support their point).
I think it was because of the well-known contradictions, such as the above, that I deeply suspected there to be more which were not spoken about because they are either unknown due to the sort of outright change of words as in this video, or were deemed to be "harmless". The latter, of course, may have been harmless in and of themselves, but they did (and still do) allow preachers of the Abrahamic religions to pick and choose their own paths through the texts, thereby encouraging, and occasionally causing, the schisms in all three religions. Essentially, they have potentially been the foundation for the deaths and persecutions of countless millions over the centuries. In this case, who can measure the harm done to LGBTQ+ people worldwide and for at least 2 millennia. The thought of that is just gut-wrenchingly horrific.
As in Lynne Truss's _Eats Shoots and Leaves_ (a hilarious but also accurate book of points in grammar, the heading using the punchline of the old joke about a hungry, randy and murderous panda), even something as apparently innocuous as a missed comma can cause a lot of trouble! It acts as a reminder that there really isn't any mistake in written language which doesn't have the potential to cause, at the very least, red faces 😳 😁.
This channel is criminally undersubscribed. Going to share this link with my handful of Twitter pals and will ask them to share it with theirs. I only hope we can get some more people who are missing out on very fascinating information.
I was sent here by Mr. Atheist; I don't regret it at all. Great video.
So why didn’t he show the changes made? He shows the passage we now see but doesn’t show the “original” passage…why? Because no changes were made. Leviticus isn’t the only mention of homosexuality in the Bible. It’s also in Deuteronomy 22:5, Romans 1:26-33 and Corinthians 6:9-11. The Bible has not changed. People are trying to make it change to match their own lives. If you want to know the truth read the Bible…don’t listen to man. The back of the Bible has a section of subjects that will take you right to where you want to go if you only want to see a specific subject. Don’t just listen to people…read and decide for yourself. You need to investigate and have discernment in all things biblical.. Your life is at stake.
Don't listen to man ehh.. fine I won't read the Bible then
How does that condone homosexuality? This is equivalent to saying to not murder your mother intrinsically means that you can murder anyone else. Just because they didn't stipulate everything under the sun doesn't mean it is permitted.
Unless you have an original copy, you can't say for sure it condoned it. Its just a theory
No question. But almost everything in this field rests upon a certain amount of uncertainty. We can only interpret the data that we have.
@@DigitalHammurabi I do not see how you apparently have proven that the bible condoned homosexuality, even though that is what you plainly state in your video.
@@jmanker6106 We haven't proven anything, we've just presented an argument by an academic.
Dicks out for Hammurabi
! And Mr Atheist.
@4:30 "People came back to laws of Leviticus 18 and changed them" - where is your verifiable source text to support this claim?
That's why I don't trust the Bible - it was rewritten and translated over and over ...there are contradictions and so on. I seek God in my heart and I believe that LOVE is not a sin and never will be !
Dayunm!!! I’ve been all my life heterosexual bc of the Bible. But I’m too old now to be gay. Next life maybe
Damn! Well, at least you can like and subscribe during this life ;-)
I already liked and subbed. Too bad I can only do it once. Regard to the 🐈 s
Cats send their best wishes 😉
How come? Just travel to a different dimension ;).
Oh, sweetie, you're never too old to turn gay. What's your email? I'll send you a pdf of our agenda...
I understand your point, and I do agree that the Old Testament has been edited, but I believe your conclusion here bypasses another potential solution. When the law says, "You can have sex with women, but not *these* women," could it not be that it's talking to men? And when it says, "You can have sex with men, but not *these* men," could it not be that it's talking to women? Why automatically assume that these are same-sex references? We see a number of heterosexual unions in the Pentateuch, including adulterous and incestuous situations, but we never see homosexual unions among any named persons. As I recall, prior to Leviticus, we only have one situation where homosexuality is mentioned, and even then only obliquely (the men of Sodom).
The conclusion you advocate here would also seem to be negated by the provision "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman," or do you feel that this was a later edit as well?
Wow this video is really good! Thanks for the external links too!
Very interesting! Thank you for citing the paper, I look forward to reading it!
Sent by Mr. Atheist
hello! im sorry if by any means i come off as a bother but could you please give me the sources on the claim that leviticus has been changed? id really like to have them for a document im making
They should be listed in the video description?
@@DigitalHammurabi ok thank you, excuse me i ddint checked
Thank you Mr atheist sent me here he is awesome
Thank you so much!!!!
The catholic church had special marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, and had same sex couples who were sainted.
came from mr atheist!!
this is a really cool video! I'm gonna have to do more research on this so I can know what to say should this ever come up
Found you through Mr Atheist. I appreciate your content. Subscribed. Thx for your work. I greatly appreciate it! ❤️
You are so welcome! That is very kind of you!!
Told by Jimmy Snow to tell he send me. Great stuff btw
Here on the recommendation of Mr Atheist 😊 love you guys xx
This is so cool!!!! Thank you for coming!!
Reporting for the "Mr. Atheist Sent Me" party :) This guy is good!
I thought I already heard this, but you made a summary.
Like what you've done with it and you have an avatar! Great facial expressions.
Thank you! We had some people say that the original video was too confusing, so we made a new one :)
Great video . . . . very interesting stuff. Thank y'all so much for linking the paper so it's easily accessible. I just downloaded said paper and am excited to read it!!
:-)
Oh, BTW . . . . Mr. Atheist sent me!!
(edit: sub'ed!!)
Awesome!!!
Mr. Atheist sent me xD
Hi! Happy to have you 😁
Sent by Mr. Atheist. Going to check out more of your content :)
Woohoo!!!! :-) Awesome to have you!!
Thank you very much. i'm bisexual and proud. my dad always tells me it's a sin but i know it's not a choice or sin. thank you again for speaking the truth god bless you and amen.... ❤🙌
Good
God bless you
Look into Paul the False Apostle. He wrote 13 books to control the church after the time of Jesus.
And if you read the book of Jeremiah it is clear the Jews were not following God's law from the time they left Egypt.
Here lies the false "dog"ma dog is backward from god and god made clear the jews and their vain law was not his and they went backwards and not forwards.
@@JC-Utopic-Gauntlet Actually he wrote only 7. His acolytes wrote 2, and churchmen forged the other 4.
Friends, it makes no sense to use the Bible as a guidebook. It's a collection of historical texts that come from different places and times and have been edited, revised and translated.
Indeed, which is why we have a series of videos explaining textual criticism, and various others looking at the Bible from an academic, rather than faith-based, perspective.
Hey Mr Athiest sent me!! What up?
Hey Shannon! Thanks for joining us ;)
Ooooh DONT have sex with your family, it’s a good thing there’s a book to tell us not to do that....
How many generations of human inbreeding would it take to learn it is not a good idea. It is a common lesson in many cultures. Thanks
@CJ
😂😂
It wouldn’t necessarily have to be "learned." Being selected against in any way can make something less common.
Don't know. Seems to have taken the Ptolemies quite some time to figure it out...
I came from Mr. Atheist.
and I am looking forward to listening to your gilgamesh videos :)
You already know who sent me here and boi am I glad that i actually came here. +1 subscriber
Amazing!!!!!! :-)
this bright light appeared and and a man shown through said his name was Mr. Atheist! he told me to come watch your videos! lol
😂 Jimmy is awesome, and we’re glad to have you!
Mr. Atheist sent me!
Hooray! Hello and welcome, we're glad to have you :)
Mr Atheist also sent me. This video needs WAY more views than it has...
That is so sweet to say! Thank you!!
@@DigitalHammurabi You're very welcome. It always makes me sad when videos full of information, common sense, and a focus towards actually *understanding* the things you swear by in this life are overlooked.
I tried this and was told that today’s “version” of god’s perfect word is what counts.
Do they even listen to what they say?
Only if it fits.
The delusion is all encompassing.
1:52 Ive been saying that for a long fucking time. It was about time someone brought it up
Umm... So the thing that I find in your argument is that you're 'telling ' us what Hebrew Bible said. Not presenting any proof of it whatsoever, nor mentioning the precise Hebrew words that condoned homosexuality. Proof as for precise or key words that would add more fundament; I understand that maybe a whole verse would not be practical for a TH-cam video but words wouldn't do any wrong. It hears as if summarizing or wrapping up what the Hebrew text said and then proceeding to tell us that the Bible Hebrew text said x or y thing.
This is an opinion although meant not to be offensive in any way or rude man -- just wanted to clarify before y'all jump on me
You’re quite correct, and thank you for the comment, but This video is really only intended to provide a summary of Dr. Dershowitz’s article on the subject. The link to the paper should be in the description if you’d like to read it yourself 😁
If we ever do a general video on homosexuality and the Bible then we’ll endeavor to include that linguistic information!
I'm a later comer sent by Mr. Atheist. Loved the video ^_^
Came from Mr. Atheist! xD
Awesome topic, Mr. Athiest has sent me here 💙💚
Your argument is flawed. Your saying that by condemning Y then X is condoned. Or, by not explicitly condemning X then X is condoned. Neither of these points is valid and therefore weakens your argument.
Your evidence only shows that X is not addressed. The fact that X is not addressed is a valid point in that it implies that X was not an issue worth including. That is the proper basis of your argument.
Personally, I dismiss the bible outright. I don't see any point in debating what a work of fiction does or doesn't say.
Mr. Atheist sent me.
Thank you for the input! I think the argument is more complex than that, but it is hard to put the subtleties in a short video. We are really happy to have you with us!!
@@DigitalHammurabi No doubt. Just advising caution. Your opponents will attack every little detail you present if you give them a chance. Keep up the fight.
+Ralph Johnson I agree. Maybe this video didn't represent the original argument all that well, I haven't looked into it so I can't say. But going with what is presented here, indeed the conclusion that the bible condoned homosexuality originally because it was not specific about not doing so, would be a logical fallacy.
If a manufacturer of microwave ovens puts in it's operation manual that you should not put dogs into it to dry them, but says nothing about cats, It doesn't logically follow that it's fine to put cats in it. That's the type of fallacy being made here.
Except that
No
You must not
לֹ֥א (lō)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no
lie
תִשְׁכַּ֖ב (ṯiš·kaḇ)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
with
וְאֶ֨ת־ (wə·’eṯ-)
Conjunctive waw | Preposition
a man
זָכָ֔ר (zā·ḵār)
Noun - masculine singular
as with
מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י (miš·kə·ḇê)
Noun - masculine plural construct
a woman;
אִשָּׁ֑ה (’iš·šāh)
Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 802: Woman, wife, female
that
הִֽוא׃ (hî)
Pronoun - third person feminine singular
[is] an abomination.
תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh)
Noun - feminine singular
As a person who likes history I debuk any claim athiest or thiest that is historicaly incurrate
Since the complete Leviticus of 450 bc it's even by 540 bc
I wonder why he says many years as the book of Leviticus was not completed in the time of Moses jewsih tradition was oral for most part
( So Much so that Even the common Jew memorized whole chapters)
and there are a few passages in paypurs
But not even one * credited * historian agrees that Leviticus 18:22 was altered
We like facts don't we ?
So .... Where is it
Or is this just speculation?
Like i said I could be wrong
But still it's like muslims saying the gospel has been corrputed
Or young Earth creationist saying the Earth is 6000 year's old
Both untrue on Is big a historical inaccuracie
And the other a dumb anti paleontology or geology belief
Sadly the historical data does not agree with your video speculation but oh well it was still interesting I guess
@Ralph Johnson
Actually, the claim is that Y was condoned then changed to X and condemned.
Derek sent me!!! lol... well actually, I found you because of Derek. That counts , right? 😆
Hm, i am not here from mr atheist, i decided i wanted to know stuff about Akkadian and Sumerian at like... 1AM and you were recommended.
Best 1AM decision ever
1am decisions rarely turn out so well, I'm glad this one was a good one!
Bible: don't have sex with men
me, a lesbian: alrighty then :)
Biblical scholar IDAN Dershowitz is from the University of Potsdam. Legal scholar ALAN Dershowitz is from Harvard University.
PS: Thanks for the links!
I fail to see how the original text condones homosexuality. Yes, it fails to specifically condemn it, but so do most other passages..
It's almost as if you're claiming that anything not specifically forbidden is officially condoned.
the sad part is in the bible when jesus mentioned that god only meant for man to be with woman and thats the only marriage that exists under the eyes if god.
Mr. Atheist sent me. I myself am bisexual and raised as Catholic and videos like this are greatly appreciated.
We’re very happy to have you, and I’m glad that the video is helpful ☺️ I find that so much of the Bible that is used to attack other people is used dishonestly or in ignorance...I personally don’t think the Bible should be used to dictate modern life, but hopefully work like this will help others who see the Bible in a different light to me.
I can’t remember where but I remember reading an article by a professor in ethics and something about religion and it said that gay sex was not ‘I love you’ back then, it was ‘I own you’.
Further reading that will be helpful are the first and third books written by Dr. John Boswell.
"For this cause God gave them up unto *vile affections:* for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." --Romans 1
The Holy Word of God can be no more clearer or direct than that.
mr atheist sent me
uh yeet
the only sexual relationships affirmed by Jesus, was that of a husband and wife.
T H A N K Y O U.
I now know how to shut down those arguments.
Thanks for that! It not only enlightens about sexual encounters but also does a lot to make more sense of the Creation myths for example.
Mr. Athiest sent me here!! I’m happy he sent me
So are we! Hello and welcome 😁
Digital Hammurabi I always felt like something was off with the Bible in some of the literature, but i could never figure it out. At least now I know. Thank you.
This sounds fascinating, but how many other scholars share this view?
Can you stap twisting scriptures?
I would, of course, argue that I am not. However, I would be interested in the critiques that you have with the arguments that Dr. Dershowitz has made.
Do you have any videos on romans 1, Matthew 5 and 6 and other bible passages that seem to condemn homosexuality, lust, pornography, etc?
We don’t, but I suspect that they will be coming soon :-)
@@DigitalHammurabi Cool, thanks :)
Love him or hate him, he's spitting straight facts
Actually they're pretty gay facts if you think about it.
No he isn’t. He couldn’t even show the change he states happened. People just WANT him to be right….doesn’t mean it is. There are other passages to explain.
@@suzannehutchins9517 proof of those other passages?
Mr Athiest sent me! Subscribed
the pumpkin king sent me
Mr. Athiest