Talk:Book of Leviticus

I am not well-educated on this topic...

Can anyone shed some light on how these laws worked in practice? They seem impossible to follow, and I am incredulous these were well-enforced. Regular enforcement would at least explain why the Israelites were always in trouble... they would have been too busy executing people to notice they were under attack. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2015

1. Les'banism's okay; as well as men having sex with each other while standing up; a man having sex with a male who is not a man—i.e. pederasty; or a man having sex with a man in a manner that he wouldn't with a woman: e.g. oral and anal is okay with him as long as you don't do such with a woman
2. Is "be cut off from among his people." really mean to be killed?
3. I'm not sure 1 Corinthians 10:23–26 as exempts them/us from following these laws.
4. This uncleanliness business doesn't seem to be a big deal. If I, say, shook hands with a menstruating woman, I'd be unclean, but hey, so what. The worse I have to do is change clothes and have a shower. I was going to do that anyway.

Talk to Civic Cat 19:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Bible says the things you're saying it does. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose some xians would say the same, but I read the verse.
"Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
No: nothing about girl-girl sex, gay-sex-standing-up, pederasty, differing practices between genders, or as I read it now, single men. Note it says "mankind," not a single man. I guess that makes the Bible okay with gay marriage.Talk to Civic Cat 20:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What English word it uses will depend on what translation you're reading. What it means (sexual activity between men) is pretty obvious. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the KJV—apparantly the only legitimate English bible, save for perhaps the earlier wp:Geneva Bible and wp:Tyndale Bible. Though it tends to be harder to take literally:
"13 Yf a man lye with the mankynde after the maner as with woma kynd, they haue both comitted an abhominacion and shall dye for it. Their bloude be apon their heed." wikisource:Bible (Tyndale)/Leviticus#Chapter 20. I guess it means they'll have to dye clothes.

Keep in mind, good Christian fundies must must take the Bible as literally as possible, or they might as well give up on Christianity and become mystics.

Talk to Civic Cat 20:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. . . It's interesting how those "good Christian fundies" actually don't say the things you're suggestion ("e.g. oral and anal is okay with him as long as you don't do such with a woman"). Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My conservative Christian friends and aquaintances don't know what to think of me, when I say those things, but I seem to have intrigued a few of the fundies.   ;-)
Talk to Civic Cat 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that a euphemism? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is what a euphemism?Talk to Civic Cat 21:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Intrigued" Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd give them that credit—at least one or two of them. They ain't dumb, just somewhat unedumacated.Talk to Civic Cat 21:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender

This is true if you assume the English text is authoritative, Which I guess most American Christians do...

In Hebrew it's more complicated. All pronouns have gender. And by and large all the laws and instructions in the Pentateuch are given with male second-person pronouns (either singular or plural), and it's not explicit whether they apply to the women as well. I believe the situation in Greek, Latin and other gendered languages is similar.--Nngnna (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, suggest editing that part to suit. Incidentally Greek has three genders (like German). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope there's someone familiar with Biblical Hebrew. Is all of the original text gendered so it only applies to men? Or do some prohibitions apply to women as well? This is definitely worth adding to the article. It's also worth mentioning that if people follow a King James Only theology they have to apply what the KJV says and not what the Hebrew says. --Annanoon (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In particular, o Hebrew scholars, does Leviticus use a masculine singular pronoun which applies only to a man, or a plural pronoun which might apply to mixed groups? (Most languages seem to use the masculine plural for mixed groups, but I'm not sure if Hebrew does.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I updated the text to clarify that it's about English translations, but someone should add about Hebrew if they know. --Annanoon (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see from context, the entire chapter is addressed only to men, in that all other prohibitions presuppose a straight man (singular) is addressed. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of leviticus in the new testament

Hebrew 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
Hebrew 7:18-19 18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. ^{— Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs}