On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, george murphy wrote:
> But it is theologically invalid to cite OT
> passages that call male homosexual behavior an "abomination" (with fine
> disregard for the fact that eating shellfish is in the same category) & think
> that that settles the matter.
>
>
What is the case in an English translation may not be the case in the
original. The Hebrew word translated as abomination in the dietary laws of
Leviticus 11 is different from the word translated the same way with
reference to sodomy, idolatry, spiritism, etc. Although I am certainly not
an authority on the precise meaning of these two words, the fact that the
OT is consistent in using one word in connection with the dietary laws and
the other word in relation to these other behaviors seems to strongly
suggest that there was a real difference in meaning between these two
words.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 21:17:10 EDT