Answering a Letter to Dr. Laura: A Rebuttal for Certain Old Testament
Difficulties.
My response is in smaller text to a letter that was put into my
locker at work. I assume this 'letter' was found circulating on the internet.
Dear Dr. Laura
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have
learned a great at from your show, and I to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind him that Levticus 18:22 c1ear1y to be an abomination.
End of debate.
Dr. Laura is converted Jew. As a Christian,
I cannot answer for her because our foundations for both knowledge and law
differ. It is true the Christianity was born of the ancient Jewish faith,
but our paths have diverged profoundly over the last two thousand years.
The Mishna calls Jesus a sorcerer and a fraud, Christians worship Him as
God. I would guess that the modern Jewish reasons why they do not follow
Levitical law is because their temple no longer exists, and since the Muslims
have a mosque on the site they can’t build a new one. This, as it seems to
me, would tie the law to the temple and not to God Himself. I think they
are at least partially correct but for the wrong reasons.
As for the source for Scriptures both the Jews have the
same Old Testament but they only recognized the Torah (and few of the wisdom
books minus the some of the prophetic Psalms.) as being inspired. The prophets
are considered to be apocryphal. 1 The Mishna and the Talmud were written
several hundred years after the Romans destroyed their temple, and is the
basis of modern Jewish religion. Hassidic Jews recognize the Kabala which
is a rather esoteric interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians
on the other hand recognize sixty-six which make up the modern Protestant
Bible. 2 All these are considered inspired and defensible as such.
Twenty-seven of these inspired books make up what we call the New Testament.
They were written in the First Century after the resurrection of Jesus, whom
the Christians know as the Christ. 3 God does not make a case for His
existence in the Bible, but He reveals Himself as I AM. 4 Christians
believe the only way God could identify with and objectively reveal Himself
to us is by becoming one of us. The Christian sees that every book from Genesis
to Revelation speaks of and about Christ.
To the Christian, both physical and moral law is intrinsically
woven into the fabric of the universe. It is not my purpose here to explain
the Christian philosophy of why moral law (at least for the time being) is
optional, unlike physical laws. 5 There are two basic categories of law;
that which is offensive to the character of the Creator, and those laws which
are commanded by God to a specific purpose. To say that eating shellfish
is an offense to the actual character of God is insulting, make Him out be
arbitrary, petty and trivial. An ancient Israelite eating shrimp was not
following God’s plan. God has nothing against shrimp, He made them! These
laws are called ceremonial laws. They served a purpose to separate the Israelites
from their neighbors and to serve as reminders and teaching aids pointing
to Christ’s redemption. In times of war or unrest in modern times, martial
law is sometimes declared for a purposed. When that purpose has been served
the law is lifted because it is no longer needed. Just because the law was
temporary doesn’t mean the law was any less valid or true. Such the same
with ceremonial law, it served it’s purpose and now it is no longer needed
because Christ fulfilled the purpose of those laws. 6
Murder however, always has been and always will be wrong.
It is punishable by death unlike the few days of isolation for eating shrimp.
Murder is an offense to God’s character (and I think there is nothing trivial
about this) because man has intrinsic value. 7 No man is intrinsically
more valuable than another. 8 The Christian does not think of law as
being pragmatically based as post-modern man does. An action is not wrong
because of a perceived negative consequence, rather negative consequences
occur because the action is wrong. The Bible tells us not only who God is,
but who we are as well. Since He knows us perfectly, He knows what is good
for us. So He teaches us through His law just like good parents should do
for their children. God understands which direction we are heading, and without
taking away our choice He is trying to steer us back from the impending disaster.
9 As C.S. Lewis put it, "there will be two kinds of people in the end; those
who say to God, ‘Thy will be done.’ And those to whom God will say ‘Thy will
be done.’" In other words, God will honor our choice. The former will live
with God, the latter will sent away from God—which is Hell.
God has the right to kill and judge men because of who
He is, Creator and Redeemer. 10 Vengeance is not ours. 11 God does however
use the swords of men in judgment. 12 As long as they were not killing on
their own account but under the command of God, they are not guilty of murder.
God sanctions human government and rule of law and by implication the force
they must use to maintain peace. 13 The conscious, which is both the compulsion
to make moral choices and the judge between them, is an attribute given to
us by our Creator. 14
Materialism and darwinistic mechanisms (instincts) are
completely impotent in explaining why we are moral. Atheist philosophers
admit this. Nietzsche was quite prophetic in how he described what
would happen when man finally realized what he had done in killing God. I
admire him because he was one of the most consistent atheists I’ve ever read,
and he went mad for his consistency. Christianity provide the only worldview
where you can be both consistent and happy. To the Christian, a man who kills
God thinking this gains him freedom is deluding himself; in killing God you
kill yourself. The only way an atheist can be happy is to make a leap of
faith into a realm which he claims is not real. He does this because he knows
that if all is material then he are nothing more than a ultra-complex machine.
Man doesn’t like thinking of himself this way, so he makes the leap. A Christian
doesn’t have these problems of intrinsic value and determinism.
Now I that I’ve said a few things about what Christians
believe about law and morality, I will address these questions in light of
the background which I just gave.
I do need advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and
how to best follow them.
a. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
No where is it said to smite anyone for objecting
to smells. Is this the best you can do?
b. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned
in Exodus 21:7. In this day
and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
The Bible regulated slavery. There was no law saying
you must own slaves.
c. I know that 1 am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lcv.15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
This is ceremonial, to set Israel apart from it’s neighbors. Contact
is physical. Are any of these ‘women’ your wife?
d. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from
them you may buy slaves. Leviticus 25:44-45 NIV
Again, the Bible regulates slavery. It says you
may buy slaves, not you must buy. Furthermore this law was only for Jews
who used slavery as a standard mechanism for labor. Two questions: Are you
Jewish? And is slavery a standard mechanism for labor today?
e. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself?
You are not, that would be murder. God was
serious, and just like martial law in times of war or unrest people get shot
for seemingly minor crimes, there were Israelite’s who were killed for things
that to us seem minor. But God, in His plan was ‘putting his foot down’ that
this day is Holy, and no Israelite would take it lightly. This turned out
to be extremely important throughout Jewish history in maintaining their
identity. This was imperative to God’s plan 15 , so yes, He was serious.
Jesus said that that Sabbath was made for man, not
man for the Sabbath. 16 Jesus healed on the Sabbath claiming to be Lord of
it and claimed that the Pharisees had missed the point completely by saying
‘it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.’ 17
Christians do not observe the Sabbath, we worship
on Sunday. The Sabbath was a shadow of things to come. 18 It symbolized rest
from our work and enjoying what God has given us. Christians have been loosed
from the Old Testament Law and are under now the Law of Grace. 19 By His
resurrection on the first day of the week 20 and His continued appearances
on successive Sundays 21 and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost
22 the church came to adopt a pattern of Sunday worship. 23 Sunday
worship was further hallowed when our Lord appeared to John on ‘the Lord’s
Day.' 24
How a Jew could answer the above question I haven’t
the slightest clue. I think you’ve really got Dr. Laura here because modern
Jews still observe and take the Sabbath very seriously.
f. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination
(Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree.
Can you settle this?
I’ll list the two verses each in seven different
English translations along with the transliterated Hebrew and lexical definitions.
I’ll have some commentary after, but it should be oblivious that this objection
equates apples with oranges.
Leviticus 18:22 (Interlinear Transliterated Bible)
mankind, not Thou shalt lie as with womankind: is abomination.
it
Wª'et- zaakaar lo' tishkab mishkªbeey 'ishaah Tow`eebaah
hiy'
Tow`eebaah = abomination; loathsome, detestable thing.
To`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of
family or tribal relationships. Certain acts or characteristics are destructive
of societal and familial harmony; both such things and the people who do
them are described by to`ebah: "These six things doth the Lord hate; yea,
seven are an abomination unto him:... a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands
that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,... and
he that soweth discord among brethren" Prov 6:16-19. God says, "The scorner
is an abomination to men" Prov 24:9 because he spreads his bitterness among
God's people, disrupting unity and harmony. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary
of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Lev 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable. NIV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
NKJV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is
an abomination. NASU
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
KJV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
RSV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is
an abomination. NAS
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
ASV
Leviticus 11:10 Interlinear Transliterated Bible.
And all that not have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of
all move in the waters, and of any thing living that which is in the waters,
shall be an abomination they
Wªkol 'ªsher 'eeyn- low cªnapiyr wªqasqeset
bayamiym uwbanchaaliym mikol sherets hamayim uwmikol nepesh hachayaah
'ªsher bamaayim sheqets heem
sheqets = OT:8263
sheqets (sheh'-kets); from OT:8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically)
an idolatrous object:
KJV - abominable (-tion).
OT:8262 shaqats (shaw-kats'); a primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively)
to loathe, pollute:
KJV - abhor, make abominable, have in abomination, detest, X utterly
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International
Bible Translators, Inc.)
Lev 11:10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins
and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the
water, they are an abomination to you. NKJV
Lev 11:10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins
and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other
living creatures in the water--you are to detest. NIV
Lev 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have
fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the
living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
NASU
Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters,
they shall be an abomination unto you: KJV
Lev 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales,
of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that
are in the waters, is an abomination to you. RSV
Lev 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers, that do not have
fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the
living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,
NAS
Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,
of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are
in the waters, they are an abomination unto you, ASV
Notice first that all the English translations
are unanimous and consistent with each other. Secondly, notice that the Hebrew
words translated abomination or detestable are different in the two verses;
to`ebah and sheqets. Thirdly, notice the underlined it is 18:22 and to you
in 11:10. Now it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that
the two ‘abominations’ in verses 18:22 and 11:10 are contextually and referentially
different. The abomination is (absolute) in 18:22, and is to an Israelite
(relative) in 11:10.
Homosexual apologists argue that to`ebah refers only to
homosexual sex in an idolatrous context (temple prostitution) and not to
a loving homosexual relationship. To`ebah is used in context to idolatry
but also ‘To`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or
tribal relationships. Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of
societal and familial harmony’ as described in Vine's Expository Dictionary
of Biblical Words . Besides, the Hebrew language has particular words
for temple prostitutes; ‘No Israelite man 25 or woman 26 is to become a shrine
prostitute.’27
As you can see, the male (qadesh) and female (qedeshah)
temple prostitutes are differentiated so this is not unclear as to what it
is saying. The Bible, contrary to what most people believe, can be very specific.
And if to`ebah only refers to temple prostitution as the homosexual apologists
say, why is it not then used here? They would love for the language to be
that fuzzy, but it isn’t. Furthermore, by the same reason these apologist
attempt to say that there no longer any law against homosexuality, the same
reason could be used to decriminalize bestiality and incest. ‘But these are
not accepted by society yet,’ you say? This Christian would say it is ludicrous
of man to believe he has the authority to create law. The universe does not
conform itself to what a man declares to be true or lawful; to believe that
it does is delusional 28 and patently absurd. 29
Since homosexuality is abomination, this law is not temporary.
It is absolutely wrong. So, anything said in New Testament couldn’t change
that fact. But, lo and behold, the teaching in the New Testament confirms
that homosexuality is wrong. 30 The attempt by homosexual apologists to change
the Greek word that is translated natural 31 in Romans 1:26-27
into meaning ‘according to societal standards’ is baseless. Christian
apologist Dr. James White addressed this aberrant translation of phusikos,
‘There isn’t a lexicon on God’s green earth that says that.’ From my three
Greek lexicons, phusikos is properly translated as ‘natural,’ they agree
with each other and with Dr. White’s statement.
Lastly, the Bible is God’s will and law revealed to us. The Creator defines
law then revealed the law to us. To say that law is determined by man ‘according
to societal standards’ is idolatry.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against
all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God
has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged
the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and
birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts
to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things
rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the
men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust
for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received
in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought
not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil,
greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;
they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are
senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous
decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue
to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans
1:18-32 NIV
g. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that 1 wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
This law applied only to priests who present sacrifices
to God on behalf of the people. No one other than a qualified priest could
‘go near the curtain or approach the altar’ 32 to make offerings to
God. An Israelite bought his offering to the priest who would sacrifice it
on the Israelite’s behalf. If you had a defect you could have had a qualified
priest present your offering and it would have been acceptable to God.
These sacrifices are no longer necessary because Jesus
provided the final, complete and perfect sacrifice for our sins. 33
Jesus is now the High Priest (intercessor) for those who have accepted His
gift.
h. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?
Where does it say they need to die?
i. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if wear gloves?
Are you an ancient Israelite?
j. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t
we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20: 14)
Firstly, are you an ancient Israelite? Then none
of the penalties of these laws immediately apply to you. Blasphemy and sexual
sin will still be judged after death. 35 In other words, punishment for sins
against God is currently postponed until after death. 36 Secondly, planting
two different crop in the field and wearing garments made of two different
kinds of thread were not a capital offenses. The incident described in Leviticus
24:10-16 was an open rebellion and blasphemy against God. The ‘entire assembly
must stone’ blasphemers, so I’m sorry you couldn’t have done it privately.
The crime of sleeping with mother and daughter as described in Leviticus
20:14, was capital. The burning under the sentence of the Law took place
after the death of the criminal by stoning. 37 Stoning was never a
private affair, but done by ‘people of the community.’ 38 So again no, you
couldn’t have burned anybody alive nor killed in a private affair.
As I said before, Christians are no longer under the Old
Testament law but under grace because Jesus fulfilled the law. And also as
I’ve said before, the Old Testament laws were no less valid or true because
they were temporary. If a temporary law is declared today for some purpose,
you are obligated to obey it when it is in force; or you will be punished
and rightly so. We all know this, don’t we? The accusation of relativism
is baseless, those who accuse mix apples with oranges. God can be known.
But not to those who do not care about the truth, listening only to what
they want to hear. 39
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that
we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer
under the supervision of the law. Galatians 3:23-25
Jesus brought grace to the world. His mission then was of mercy not
condemnation. When He comes back to earth, it will be in judgment of it and
us. 40 You are free to bear the penalty of your own sin or to have it taken
away; choice is yours.
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.
They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman
was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to
stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as
a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When
they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any
one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first,
until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus
straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned
you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn
you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." John 8:3-11
NIV
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
It is.
I hope this was helpful. Any questions? Please feel free to ask.
Mark C Jennings
arminian@truevine.net
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Anonymous
P.S. Anonymous should do his homework.
1. Because if they took them literally it would mean that they had
executed their King.
2. The Catholics recognize a few more.
3. Christ is a title, not a name.
4. Exodus 3:14, John 8:24, 58
5. This is a long story and really a subject that can be treated separately.
6. Matthew 5:17-18
7. Genesis 1:26
8. Job 31:13-15, Psalm 33:13-15, Proverbs 22:2, Mark 10:42-45, Acts 10:28;
17:26, Galatians 3:28
9. Matthew 23:37, Proverbs 24:11-12, Romans 7:24-25
10. Colossians 1:16-23
11. Romans 12:19, Deuteronomy 32:35
12. Deuteronomy 12:29-32, Number 31:3
13. Matthew 22:17-21, Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-17
14 Romans 2:14-15
15. John 4:22
16. Mark 2:27
17. Matthew 12:6-12
18. Colossians 2:16-17
19. Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:24-25
20. Matthew 28:1
21. John 20:26
22. Acts 2:1 It was when the day of pentecost was fully come, in which
there seems to be a reference to the manner of the expression in the institution
of this feast, where it is said (Lev 23:15), You shall count unto you seven
sabbaths complete, from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which
was the next day but one after the passover, the sixteenth day of the month
Abib, which was the day that Christ arose. This day was fully come, that
is, the night preceding, with a part of the day, was fully past. (from Matthew
Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic
Database.
23. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2
24. Revelation 1:10 On the Lord's day. Though forcibly detained from
church communion with the brethren on "the Lord's day," the weekly commemoration
of the resurrection, John was enjoying spiritual communion. The earliest
mention of the term. But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving,
and the Lord's supper, is implied, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2: cf. John 20:19-26.
It corresponds to "the Lord's supper," 1 Cor 11:20. Ignatius alludes to "the
"Lord's day" ('Ad Magnes,' ix.), and Irenaeus, in the 'Quaests. ad Orthod.,'
cxv. (in Justin Martyr). Justin Martyr, 'Apology,' ii., 98, etc., 'On Sunday
we hold our joint meeting: for the first day is that on which God, having
removed darkness, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from
the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him; on the day after
Saturday, Sunday, having appeared to His apostles, He taught.' To it Pliny
refers ('Ep.,' xcvii., b. x.): 'The Christians, on a fixed day, before dawn,
meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God,' etc.
Tertullian, 'De Coron.,' iii., 'On the Lord's day we deem it wrong to fast.'
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (second century), wrote a book on the Lord's day
('Eusebius,' iv., 26). Also Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170 AD), in Eusebius,
'Ecclesiastical History,' iv., 23, 8; Clement of Alexandrinus (A.D. 194 AD),
'Stromata,' v. and vii., 12; Origen, 'C. Cels.,' viii., 22. Rom 14:5-6, refers
not to the Sabbath, but to days of Jewish observance: "He that regardeth
not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it," is not in 'Aleph A B C Delta
G f g, Vulgate. The theory that the day of Christ's second coming is meant,
is untenable. 'The day of the Lord' is different from [hee (NT:3588) kuriakee
(NT:2960) heemera (NT:2250)] "the Lord's (an adjective) day," which in the
ancient Church always designates Sunday, though possibly the two shall coincide
(at least in parts of the earth), whence a tradition is in Jerome, on Matt
25, that the Lord's coming was expected on the Paschal Lord's day. The visions
of the Apocalypse, seals, trumpets, and vials, etc., are grouped in sevens,
and naturally begin on the first day of the seven, the birthday of the Church,
whose future they set forth (Wordsworth).
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database.
Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
25. OT:6945 qadesh (kaw-dashe'); from OT:6942; a (quasi) sacred person,
i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:
KJV - sodomite, unclean. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers
and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c)
1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
26. OT:6948 qedeshah (ked-ay-shaw'); feminine of OT:6945; a female
devotee (i.e. prostitute): KJV - harlot, whore.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International
Bible Translators, Inc.)
27. Deuteronomy 23:17 NIV
28. Romans 1:18-24
29. Job 38:4
30. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7-8
31. NT:5446 phusikos (foo-see-kos'); from NT:5449; "physical", i.e.
(by implication) instinctive: KJV - natural. Compare NT:5591. (Biblesoft's
New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew
Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators,
Inc.) NT:5446
fusikos, fusikee, fusikon natural a. produced by nature, inborn b. agreeable
to nature c. governed by (the instincts of) nature: 2 Peter 2:12 (from
Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)
32. Leviticus 21:23
33. Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10-14 (The book of Hebrews explains the purpose
of the sacrificial system.)
34. Hebrews 7:23-27
35. Hebrews 9:27
36. Romans 2:4
37. Joshua 7:25
38. Leviticus 20:2
39. 2 Timothy 4:3
40. Revelation 11:17-18