On abomination
Will Crawley has written an interesting piece discussing the biblical meaning of the word abomination.
Advertise
-
Books
-
The ANC, the IRA and the rise of influence of the left within Sinn Fein…
World by Storm has a nice piece up on the IRA’s role in helping MK, the armed wing of the ANC, in the 1980s. In particular he sees a strange alchemy at work there: …if one can think of a clearly legitimate contemporary struggle it was that against apartheid and it is to the credit [...] read our review »
-
Talking to a brick wall: how to make politicians listen?
It took me a long time to warm to advertising agencies. The first time I worked with one I was working in sales management on Fairy Washing Up Liquid. I was due to attend a meeting at which I was to be told what consumers really thought of the brand. I remember my reluctance to [...] read our review »
-
Propaganda of Peace: Media and culture during the peace process
Extract from Greg McLaughlin and Stephen Baker: The Propaganda of Peace: The Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Bristol: Intellect Books. 2010. Political opponents Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness were confirmed as First Minister and Deputy First Minister of a new executive in May 2007, closing yet another chapter in [...] read our review »
-
I am a rude Latin scholar but I checked the Latin bible and could find any equivalent term.
Any bible scholars here who could give us an insight into the original Hebrew?
Shit, sorry, should have read the link first!!
What is Aramic for eejit?
Will Crawley is to be thanked. He has provided an excellent excuse for all those fundamentalist husbands caught checking out gay and girl/girl action sites on the internet:
“Just an extension of my ongoing scholarly research to deepen my understanding of the Holy Book, dear”.
Those 8ft hairy creatures that live in the Himalayas would be well within their rights to take offence now. Using Will’s definition how could these residents be classified Abominable? They are NOT vile or wicked but are indeed harmless, shy leaf eaters who keep themselves to themselves, annoy NO ONE, disappear when any hassle occurs while a shower of nosey beardy tree huggers climb all over their territory and homes. They seem to be decent sorts who you would rather live beside rather than some of the bigots; fundamentalists; Biblethumpers AND lazy, workshy, scrounging, anti-social scumbags who waste space on this earth and we are forced to share space with.
the biblical meaning of the word abomination
See under “Iris Robinson”.
Frankly, the original meaning of the word is neither here nor there, the whole book’s a load of shite, whichever way you translate it.
Rather than legitimising religion by getting involved in anything that takes it seriously, we should just tell them all to shove the whole book up their arses.
I always thought the Hebrew word of ‘toevah’ was originally derived from the ancient Jewish sassanach tribe expression ‘beyonde toe pahle’.
But what do i know ?
)
Crawley’s article is an interesting bit of history.
However, it is totally irrelevant to the “Iris” debate. She used, intentionally, the modern acceptance of the meaning of abominable.
Good point, Joe. We can’t have The Holy Bible contradicting Iris Robinson now can we?
Alun Cairns former tory spokesperson on Education and CHAIR of finance stood down over anti italian remarks.See BBc Wales site for details.
Yes indeed Noel – would Alun’s comments about “greasy wops” have raised any eyebrows over there?
Today I was thinking about all this again, and have decided that I am no longer going to vote for any unionists, and if a border poll should come about I am going to vote to join the Republic.
The Republic is fine as countries go, and I no longer wish to live in a state governed by people such as the DUP. I can not see a time ahead of us where the DUP will not be in government in some way, and probably in a big way.
If due to mandatory coalition there is no way to change the government via elections, and thus if being part of the UK means default DUP rule, then I no longer want to be in it. Under the Agreement I get to remain a British citizen in any case, so fine.
the greatest abomination is the selective use of the bible by those who enjoy a roast pork dinner after a crab starter and who regularly have a haircut and shave………
Having had a glance at Leviticas I am now craping myself that the Christians next door will think it is ok to stone me to death because I have accidently had sex with a menstrating woman!
Why do the Christians pick and chose from the Bible?
What does Peter Robinson permitt his wife to mix her fibres?
His sons to cut their hair?
Quite what the Bible’s definition of the term, (Abomination), means is unclear to me. Notwithstanding my own illiteracy, my understanding of the word is an, outrage, disgrace, or scandal. Noticeably an, (Abomination), can also mean an eyesore or even repugnant. Pass the mascara, please. Just sayin like…
Dewi,
am in Ireland so not follwoing story in Wales re. ‘wops’ – presumably been mentioned already but if ever Joe Calzaghe’s talents could be put to good use it is being let loose on that tory tuzzer. And I will be nominating a charity soon for outstanding monies – unless you fancy carrying over till 6nations?
Missed Wales game – but sounded vlike a damn fine show by the trickey red dwts.
lurig ,
‘They seem to be decent sorts ‘
Seem ?
And the chuckie brother said
It seems that DUP MINisters are not Abominable No men
YETI’s evidence is still inconclusive .
Does anyone have a Scottish Gaelic bible?
I would be very interested in the wording used by the Scottish Free Church.
Lorraine
That is funny.
abomination in (Leviticus 18v22) comes from the Hebrew:
[b]tow`ebah or tonebah[/b] {to-ay-baw’}; feminine active participle of ‘ta`ab’; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:– abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
derived from the root word
[b]ta`ab[/b]; a primitive root; to loathe, i.e. (morally) detest:–(make to be) abhor(-red), (be, commit more, do) abominable(-y), X utterly.
…….but why all the fuss about the Old Testament. It has been fulfilled and the New Testament holds priority. What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? It says:
(Romans 1:22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to [u]uncleanness[/u] through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
uncleanness comes from the Greek:
[b]akaqarsia[/b] impurity (the quality), physically or morally:–uncleanness.
27 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 [u]unseemly[/u], and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
unseemly comes from the greek:
[b]aschmosunh[/b] an indecency; by implication, the pudenda:–shame, that which is unseemly.
Looks like everything is hunky dory so long as you wash before and after, muttering something for ritual purposes while doing so.
If this is meant to suggest that the Leviticus is not as tough on homosexuality as Iris makes out and a more specialised and innocuous meaning has been lost in translation, think again. Leviticus justifies homophobia and even violence againg homosexuals in the most explicit terms. There is no nicer kinder Leviticus.
Here is the King James Verson.
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.
and here is the Amplifeid Version:-
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Bible Reader,
Are you saying that the English translation takes precidence over the original Hebrew?
Are you dismissing the study of the original as a method of Bible study?
Leviticus 20: 13 says explicitly put them to death, that suggests a fairly hard and serious meaning for abomination.
I suspect none of us are Hebrew scholars, so lets not get carried away.
There are some views and teaching in the bible which are pretty nasty and which no amount of special pleading will explain away.
Crap. I a mgaving a bad day.
Checked Latin Bible whilst fully awake and guess what ….
“cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est”
The Latin ‘abomination’ is clearly the source of the English abomination.
But my Latin Dict points to abominatio meaning ‘accursed’ ‘to be detested’ even.
Do any Christians at all acknowledge the problem of dealing with the translation of a translation, of a translation, of a translation?
Or are we to understand the translators were directly inspired by God … which is what is said about thon Mohammed bloke.
You seems stuck on the idea that I’m a biblical fundamentalist which I am not.
Tovah shmobah.
Leviticus is homophobic – its as plain as the nose on your face. The passage I quoted (20.13) proscribes death for men who sleep together. Both partners are to be killed by the way, not just the one who plays the woman’s role, as the Rabbi quoted by Will Crawley suggest.
Its hard to argue that “they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” is a hard passage to explain away. Or does “put to death” mean “have their sexuality affirmed” in the cultural context?
Abomination….That’s the baddie in the new Increddible Hulk movie?
And you can play with all the translations you like on this site:-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020.13;&version=15;
Young’s Literal Translation reads:-
And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
ggn, a wee tip, forget the latin. Use the KJV with a strongs cocorandance, you’ll get much better interpretation.
This Leviticus bloke has a lot to answer for.
the biblical meaning of the word abomination
See under “Iris Robinson”.
Sammy Morse
Oh!! ya bitch.
“it is ok to stone me to death because I have accidently had sex with a menstrating woman!”
ggn
Good job you didn´t take her up the Gary Glitter, or maybe you should´ve, accidentally of course.
“Good job you didn´t take her up the Gary Glitter, or maybe you should´ve, accidentally of course.”
Garry Glitter is a peodo, he’s not human. Although the phrase may should interesting, we should avoid it
There’s nothing wrong with Gary Glitter, he went, he got, and gained his dream.
Us Irish do that all the time, we’re peodos
As Ulster is my home land Ulster is My home land.
I wish to defend it against its enemies without – like the united liberal states of England, Scotland, Wales and the failed monarchies and republic(s).
Ulster is in danger of having it’s monarchism replaced with the liberal politically correct version that is practiced by deviants in Holland. Where orangism now allows queers to parade openly in the streets.
Well that’s all going to change just you wait and see ha ah..
We are building a new super weapon that will remake the whole of europe in his image.
You have only seen his Will To Power and not his Will To Conquer!
BTW where is that Sammy Morse when you need him?
Out with his boy friend(s) no doubt. Every where he goes he takes over the joint for his own party.
Oh Well Party On I suppose needs must.
Garry Glitter is a peodo, he’s not human. Although the phrase may should interesting, we should avoid it
So Ulstersmyhomeland you’re a fan of political correctness ?
Oops.
Ulsters my homeland,
But the KJV is clearly a translation of the Latin version.
Ergo, I am assuming the Latin version to bear a responisibilty for the English version.
Clearly the next step is Greek but first I will have to learn the script.
Shame that for someone educated through Union College that Will didn’t give a single mention to homosexuality and how it is mentioned in the New Testament.
Thanks Interested,
Googled New Testament and Homsexuality. Found this.
Corinthians 6:9-10
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Seems “revilers” are on a par with Homosexuals. Plenty of those on Slugger.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
This bit,
“The second term is “arsenokoitai” in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. “Arsen” means “man” in Greek.”
Does that make a manhole an arsehole?
But Bible Reader thats the whole point. Leviticus calls for all manner of seafood eating, cheeky children to be put to the stone – not just Iris’ own personal bogeymen.
Its a load of old cobblers!
I question whether reference to dictionaries is of great use here.
The relevant section of the 1611 “King James” Bible (which, I infer, is the one on Iris Robinson’s bedside table) was put together by the Westminster Group, chaired by Lancelot Andrews. The brief was a conservative approach to the text, and to follow the Bishops’ Bible of 1568.
The 1568 “treacle” Bible (the nickname comes from the use of “treacle” where others have “balm”) was explicitly a piece of propaganda, designed to counteract the influence of the Geneva Bible, which the authorities felt to be too Calvinist. The 1568 Bible had another element: it bowdlerised. The brief there had been:
But those translators were flying blind: there was no authority — other than their commonsense and sense of the contemporary mood — to tell them what was an “obscenitie’ or, indeed, what was the agreed meaning of any “terme”. So, in the case of Leviticus 20.13, the Bishops’ Bible gives us:
That looks like a steal from William Tyndale in 1534:
John Wycliff, in 1380, had had no qualms about giving it straight:
Wycliff’s choice of a plain word is significant. “Lechery” is the “unlawful” sin, and so (by the standards of the day) a fairly objective word; but “abomination” is the subjective reaction of others to that sin. Moreover, “abomination” was already in use in just this context. As the OED shows, Sir John Maundeville (he of the fantastic journeys to furthest Asia) by 1366 was already denouncing:
As far as I can see, the word “abomination” seems largely to have a sexual context, as in Shakespeare’s Rape of Lucrece:
The other issue is whether all of this has any modern relevance, except within the limited mentalities of religious intolerance and bigotry. I would go for another author, another century, another text for proper pontificating.
William O. Douglas used the US Supreme Court to create an individual’s “zone of privacy”. This was evident from his 1965 judgment in Griswold v. Connecticut, where he found ways to exclude the law from the bedroom. That should have “equal rights” with any partial reading of Leviticus.
Loved your Nye Bevan joke by the way Malcolm….
[b]ggn[/b]
[i]“But the KJV is clearly a translation of the Latin version.” [/i]
Whoever told you that nonscence? The KJV was translated directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, not Latin.
Ulster is my homeland,
I doubt that very much frankly. I will research the question further however.
Faggots are an abomination and should be put to death. What of it?
Let’s backtrack. Why are you asked when giving blood if you are a filthy faggot? Is it a homophobia? Is it a zenophobia? No, it is a knowledge that if you are a faggot, you are most likely an irresponsible twat with a good chance of having hepatitis C, and the HIV “gift” as the homophiles who attend the pod parties call it. (Ask Batman and Robin)
Islamic Iran has much too enlightened a policy on this. As the Koran forbids homos but does not forbid TGs, all homos must get the chop. Good idea if you ask me. And I would even volunteer to cut the nuts off O’Gorman, O’Searcaigh, Norris and the Provos Pedo squads.
Never mind that Dave – Its those filthy crab munchers I’d gladly cull. Every man and woman jack of them – clippers to their tongues for the abomination they have committed. Snip snip child of Satan and your prawn breath, for you are truly the spawn of the Dark One, as can be seen from the plate of shells before you.
And the cheeky children – to the sword with them.
By the way Dave – you’ll never be allowed to finish school until you learn to spell xenophobia correctly. And maybe then, just maybe, you might post like a thinking person (not holding my breath mind).
Ulsters my homeland @ 04:11 PM and ggn @ 04:21 PM:
It depends what you mean by …
The preface to the KJV says:
The chief editors (Bishop Bilson of Winchester and Bishop Smith of Gloucester) then add, almost as a boast:
In other words, while it was the work of a committee (actually no fewer than six committees, and a total of some four dozen scholars) it did have the benefit of the (in 1607-11) latest learning from across Europe. The essential weakness of the KJV is that contemporary English scholarship in Greek and Hebrew was, quite frankly, not all that good.
All that said, the KJV was substantially a revision of the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 (which, despite the claim on the title-page of 1611, remained the only “authorised” version). It was also a political construct, designed to be a generally-accepted middle-course between the Catholic Douai Bible (translated from the Vulgate in 1582, but first published in entirety the same year as the KJV) and the Geneva Bible (preferred by the Calvinists in Scotland, and by many English Puritans).
When we stand the 1568 and 1611 texts against each other, we can seen the close similarities of much of the text. 1568 itself derived from the Great Bible of 1539 : the second edition of 1540, with the Prologue by Cranmer, was ordered to be placed — and chained — in every church. The main hand in the Great Bible was Miles Coverdale, who used the Hebrew and Aramaic of the 1530 polyglot version to revise his own translation from the “Douche” (i.e. German) of Luther. In essence Tyndale’s Pentateuch of 1530 survived into Coverdale and the Great Bible.
ggn
Something tells me that it’s a real reach when talking about you and sex……with women;-)
Cut the Bible in half and put it in your shoes…that’ll make you feel a bit bigger…eh?
That’s the best use the likes of you would get from it anyway….and don’t worry..your empty head is safe from we marauding Christians…
BfB,I did not realise that christians were offended by dicussions on the bible.
Malcolm,
Very interesting. My opinion is that the King James version is based mostly on the Latin version is base on a little study of both and as you say, I dont hold much store in the Greek and more especially Hebrew scholarship of the period.
It would be very interesting to see a wider analysis of the translations. Any links?
I was referring to the cutting in half part of my suggestion, using ironic sarcasm to shed light on the way radical islam would chop your head off if found defacing the koran……feel free to use your personal Bible translations to make your point…..
we stopped being offended after they stopped feeding us to the lions……well, almost stopped, that is (see radical islam reference above)