Talk:Leviticus 18

Untitled
This is a useful article, which I've now linked from Christian views on homosexuality and placed in a category (a more specific one may be more appropriate, but it's a start). Rd232 16:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would vote for keeping this article. A lot of times people will claim that "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong" but not back it up in any way. In fact, this article is, literally, the first time I have ever seen the passages in question. Also, there is a pretty good (I assume? I really don't know the facts, but it sounds good.) summary of different groups' attitudes about this chapter. Ravenswood 23:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are more than 6 books dedicated to refuting the 'anti-homosexuality' aspects of these (and similar) Bible verses. It's possible that some contributors are trying to suppress this information, after realizing that a neutral exposition hurts their cause.

I'd call this POV pushing by censorship (see Gaming the system). Uncle Ed 17:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I can assure you that there are a hell of a lot more than 6 books dedicated to both sides of that (rather sterile) argument (I could cite you a bibliography of dozens of tedious monographs). In the end is more a matter of hermeneutics than exegesis. But, surely an encyclopaedia should be presenting neutral information (if there is such a thing post-modernity) without worrying about whose cause it hurts. My concern is that Leviticus 18 is not just about homosexuality (in fact it is/was the basis for the English common law of incest for centuries) - and it should not be allowed to become a battlefield solely for that debate - the sides of which can be and are recorded elsewhere. I'm afraid I'm not very sure what your point it - who are the 'some contributors' and what is 'their cause'? And what's up with your VfD summary? --Doc (?) 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You've changed the subject rather smoothly. If you ever want to return to the points I was making, let me know. Uncle Ed 23:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what your point is. That someone by insertion or supression is pushing a POV is always possible. This article was listed as a 'POV fork' and is far from being clean. Perhaps if you could be a little more specific? --Doc (?) 23:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Chart colours
The colours on the incest chart are difficult to see/compare on some monitors. Can we switch to as simple written chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.127.157 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Yeah, or in place of colors which simply obfuscate the matter words, because you know, everyone here can in fact read.

Religioustolerance.org
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Can the chart colors be switched to more colorblind friendly, high contrast colors? Or use different kinds of cross hatching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.52.87 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoting NRSV
Quotation with proper attribution does NOT violate US or international copyright law. As this is an academic or scholarly use of the material, the act of quoting the text is actually protected by the Copyright Act 1976, and international copyright agreements relevant thereto.

The vast majority of material quoted on Wikipedia and in/by any other encyclopaedia is copyrighted material. (Do use the participle, by the way; the NRSV is not "copyright"; it is "copyrighted.") As long as the quote is properly credited to the source and does not exceed 10% of the entire work (which, in this case, would be 10% of the entire NRSV translation of the Bible), there is no legal problem; and, thus, there should be no Wikipedia policy problem.


 * This article quotes the full NRSV text of Leviticus 18. The NRSV is copyright and quoting it is therefore against Wikipedia policy.  Either the full text should be removed or a public domain text used instead, eg the King James Version, American Standard Version, Darby Translation, or Young’s Literal Translation (all on Bible Gateway site). Raycol 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like quoting the entire text in the first place is very encyclopedic. If someone wants the actual text they can find it on a page specifically for that, for example, Wikisource.  But the entire text is unnecessary and does not make the article better.Crito2161 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" is a a poor translation. Why was it selected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.224.133 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it's the usual one. I agree: Do not lie with another man on a woman's bed is at least as accurate a translation; but one that removes the entire subject of homosexuality from the discussion. And that would never do!


 * Incidentally, the KJV is not in the public domain: Crown Copyright still extends over it in perpetuity.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Liberal" vs. "Conservative" & "Traditional" vs. "Modern", The Use of Emotive Words
Can we find better terms to describe these different viewpoints? The words currently being used are too emotive in context and can be misleading as not all politically conservative people are theologically conservative, and not all politically liberal people are theologically liberal. There is no mention in this article as to exactly what "liberal" and "conservative" are referring to. It is just roughly assumed, and that is bad, since there is a tendency for these words to be used in a laudatory or derogatory context.

The same with words like "modern" and "traditional". There are many on both sides of the issue who would say that theirs is really the "traditional" view in spite of what is the presently and commonly established viewpoint.69.87.160.8 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Use "theologically liberal etc." Using the word "liberal" is a complete nightmare even in the political context (because it means something very different on both sides of the Atlantic) and mixing the theological stance on the Bible certainly doesn't help. Ceplm (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

heavily imbalanced
This article focuses almost entirely on only one verse, when there's a lot to be said about the marriage prohibitions, both from anthropological and historical points of view... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia
I should explain why I added this to Category:Homophobia. This does not imply that the chapter is necessarily homophobic, especially as its meaning is debated. However, Leviticus 18 is one of the most heavily invoked biblical referenced to justify religiously-motivated homophobia. A great deal of discussion has gone into the criteria of categorizing an article as homophobic, and a FAQ is being drafted based on the conclusions of the European Union as well as the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Textual criticism
I'm surprised the page doesn't deal at all with the issue of the actual Hebrew text, which certainly does not actually say Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. What it does say is:-

And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination.

An important distinction, since now it is no longer clear exactly what the verse means. Among several possible meanings, for example, is a prohibition on two men sharing a woman sexually at the same time. This would make sense, since it would be impossible to determine (without modern medicine) which of the two had fathered any subsequent issue. Indeed, as far as medical opinion was then advanced, it could have been argued that the child had been fathered by both men; which would make it an interesting legal case in matters of inheritance, to say the least. Nuttyskin (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This opinion shouldn't be put in the article unless reliable sources can be found to support it. A recent editor added this opinion in on the basis of a self-published web page, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. See WP:RELIABLE.Alephb (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Structure
I think the "Structure" section of the article should go. It doesn't actually provide any discussion of how the article is structured. All it does is rip off, partly word for word, the section headings that show up in a particular obscure translation of the Bible. And section headings in a Bible don't necessarily describe the actual structure of the text itself. For example, the section headings would give the impression that verses 1-20 are about incest. But they aren't -- verses 1-5 are sort of prefatory material, and then 6-20 are about incest. We should replace the section with a brief and neutrally written summary of the chapter's contents, which can be folded into the "Text" section. Add a little bit about when and by whom the chapter was written, and the article starts to look a little better organized. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leviticus 18. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20021207052423/http://www.anova.org/sev/ to http://www.anova.org/sev/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew text
Could it not be transliterated??? 174.115.100.93 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Theological question
Are homosexual acts literally the thing being condemned here? There are alternate ways of interpreting this using the original language of the text and using comparative scriptures. For instance, it could be that the text is specifically referring to homosexual incest, rather than homosexuality itself. Or perhaps it's a condemnation of 2 or more different men having sexual relations with one woman. Why is there so much consensus among so many Jewish and Christian denominations that the Bible in general universally condemns homosexual acts simply for these acts being homosexual in their nature? I don't want to be someone who engages in wishful thinking about the Bible and LGBTQ issues. I just want to know the truth, even if the truth is difficult to digest. 2601:98A:400:8910:10DC:EF49:2082:82CA (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)