What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality

by Daniel A. Helminiak

Does God's word in the Bible really condemn homosexuality?...... Top scholars--like the late John Boswell of Yale, Daniel Boyarin of Berkeley, Bernadette Brooten of Brandeis, L.William Countryman of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, Victor P. Furnish of SMU, Saul M. Olyan of Brown and Robin Scruggs of Union Theological Seminary--show that those who perceive Bible passages as condemning homosexuality are being misled by faulty translation and poor interpretation...... Danial A. Helminiak, Ph.D. respected theologian and Roman Catholic priest, explains in a clear fashion the fascinating new insights of these scholars...... The Bible has been used to justify slavery, inquisitions, apartheid and the subjugation of women. Now, in this books which has sold over 100 thousand copies, read what the Bible really says about homosexuality.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, LGBT, Theology, Christianity, Gay, Faith

152 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1994

Reviews

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

granted this is a 13-year old review BUT...this book was pivotal for me. i was deeply faithful, attending a baptist college, and coming to terms with my orientation. thank goodness for the library staff's foresight in adding this to their collection. the critical, reflective analysis here made a difficult transition much easier. highly recommended to anyone struggling with this particular issue.

[Bethany · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am reading this less for myself than for my Christian parents who I am currently in the process of coming out to. (I say "in the process" because I literally am in an awkward half-out-of-the-closet-but-not-really limbo. It's weird. And complicated.)

I've been convicted for a while you can be of the Christian faith AND be gay, but I am reading books on the subject in the hopes of further clarifying my position. The object also is to hopefully someday give such books to my parents.

That being said, I'm not sure I'd give them this book. It was comprehensive, but not the easiest to read. Some sections were convincing and coherent, but there were some that weren't. This book was written about twenty years ago and I'm sure I can find something I like better that's more recent, perhaps. (Though this was conveniently located at my library. I think I'm going to have to buy my further research.)

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I know this book has been around awhile now, but I've only just discovered it...and now that I have, my thought is, "Finally!" An intelligent response to the fundamentalists who believe that their "The Bible says it's wrong" argument is the final word on sexual morality. The book offers a summary of biblical scholarly study that argues that the meaning of oft-quoted passages is not as clear as the Falwells of the world would have you think. First of all pointing out that the meaning of some words gets lost in translation from Hebrew to English or Greek to English, and then adding thorough analysis of the context of specific biblical passages and the customs and philosophies of the time, Helminiak gives gays and lesbians some verbal ammunition to counter the assaults on our lifestyle that we have put up with everyday. I'd recommend this to any GLBT ally and also to the conservative Christians out there who happen to have a close friend or family member who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the most honest examinations of the Bible and homosexuality I've read yet.

The book doesn't try to define exactly what the Bible does say on homosexuality, but rather what it doesn't. Sometimes Helminiak will come right out with his criticism of bad exegesis, i.e., in helping put to rest that useless myth about Sodom being destroyed for it's homosexual populace. It wasn't; only the more virulent anti-gay lynch mobs out there still insist it was. Other times, the author recognizes uncertainty, as in the translation of two Greek words found in, and oddly only ever in, the N.T.

Surely, a lot of people might mistake this as being in favor of a gay-positive Christianity. I don't think the book tries to go quite that far. What I took from it, is that the question of homosexuality in scripture is hardly worth mentioning, and that conservative movements to define it as a key moral issue are hopeless (Biblically speaking.)

[Fr. Thomas Reeves · Rating 1 out of 5]

helpful to see the argumentation and exegesis of those looking to justify same-sex marriage and relationships as a gift from God. This book is blatantly biased, and the author seems gleefully unaware of the limits and pitfalls of interpreting narrative texts. The blatant isogesis and huge logical and speculative jumps should be obvious to all whether Christian or non.

While a very biased approach here to the exegesis, one does engage some of the "fine sounding arguments" used by many. The Historic Church certainly has little voice in this tome.

[Henri · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have to say after reading this years ago it helped me grow closer to God and now that I attend a gay church i'm able to let go the old teachings about homosexuality and know that God makes no mistakes and that he doesn't hate me. Going to a Bible study about homosexuality in the Bible in recommended this book to the other ppl attending, I hope it helps them the way it helped me.

[Jessica L Longo · Rating 1 out of 5]

What the Bible really says about homosexuality attempts to evaluate key texts in scripture that supposedly condemn homosexuality. Through analysis of word origin and historical context, Helminiak attempts to debunk traditional evangelical interpretations. However, his interpretations are isolated to same sex acts themselves and neglect larger biblical narratives of marriage and the sexual efficacy of abstinence and lust. Helminiak argues homosexuality is permissible while inadvertently affirming pre-marital relations, lust, and neglecting scriptures overarching theme and meaning of marriage and the gospel. In the end Helminiaki finds himself committing the same folly he so eagerly argues christians commit while interpreting scripture.
As someone who is same sex attracted I empathize with anyone who seeks comfort in his argument. However, I cannot affirm its stances or arguments as they by proxy affirm sexual relations outside of marriage as well as neglect scriptures clear boundaries of marriage and it's meaning.

[Kasper]

I'm marking this DNF because I'm in all likelihood never going to finish it. Not because it isn't useful in parts but because Helminiak doesn't know how to build on a thesis and that is uniquely frustrating, especially for someone as smart as he is. (See my earlier review of Chapter 7, a comment under my second status update.)

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, The Millennium Edition Updated and Expanded," by Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D; Forward by John S. Spong.


What better book to follow one on Universalism than one on Homosexuality and scripture?


Some heads-ups: Helminiak is a Roman priest. The Millennium edition has more entries and more data than the previous editions.


Interpretation:

This really kicks off with a chapter aimed at how scripture is interpreted, or methodological differences in approach. The two differences pointed out will be between the literal and the historical critical reading of scripture. The differences here is that the literal meaning means what it means to the reader where the historical critical reading means what it meant to the writer (this is major, kids, don't sleep on this) and how both schools of thought see "inerrancy." Actually his small section on the historical critical method is very well written and plainly spoken. In telling the differences between the two I'm reminded how one congregation will be very literal until they arrive at a pet doctrine like divorce or the role of women. At that point they actually sharpen their pencil, pull out the Strongs, Vines, TDNT and, wait for it, (prayerfully) think, seeking the face of God using their heart and mind while flexing an historical critical acumen. Beautiful chapter. Regardless of where one falls on this topic it should be read because of the literal vs historical critical conversation. 


The sin of Sodom:

The writer here states that if the intention of "to know" Lots visitors means Homosexuality then one must see this confined to a rape context rather than a homosexual one. Taking care of or being hospitable to foreigners--even enemies--was sacrosanct in this culture. Therefore the violence of rape, regardless of genders, is the main issue involved. Judges 19 spells this out quite well. See also Ez. 16: 48-49; Wis. 19:13;  Mt. 10:5-15.


Thou shalt not...; Leviticus:

"Not to lie with a male as with a woman...." I think one thing that must be pointed out for those who demand modern adherence to the law is the punishment. Death. So if the ethic of the law is what one wants to keep shouldn't the punishment of infringement stay also? Cursing one's parents?--death. It doesn't stop. 

The writer makes a good point that "abomination" is what we would consider as "dirty" like picking ones nose. The word usage here in Hebrew differs from another word which would mean "wrong in itself." So for a man to lie with a man is a ritual uncleanness. We're I a bit more crass I would mention the other ways we commonly violate similar ritualistic laws of cleanness. If you read the 613 laws of Moses that Christ was the end of you would know. There are many. Ethics and taboo aren't the same.

To close this section: for a Christian to use the Mosiac law to approve/negate something one also has to deal with things heterosexual couples don't have an hang-up with which may begin with eating lobster, crawfish, shrimp, catfish, and pork,, and end in the sack. Also, Christ is the end of the law; both the law and the prophets hang on Love. Lop


Purity concerns (NT):

Short chapter. Basically what God has called clean we shouldn't call unclean. When we think about what is asked of us--virtue and purity--we shouldn't conflate with what isn't asked--Jewish Law.


Romans and "Unnatural" (Rm. 1: 18-32):

So three beginning points: Paul's language here says this practice can be socially disapproved but is not morally wrong. The structure of the passage sorts socially impure acts on the one hand and actual sin on the other. Finally the overall plan of the letter to the Romans shows why Paul mentions these acts though he doesn't think them wrong or immoral: the old law no longer matters and shouldn't divide the body of Christ.

Another point here is Paul's use of nature/natural. He uses this same word in reference to being a circumcised Jew or for a man not having long hair. This is what is customary rather than a universal. The men who gave up natural relations and women who did the same are here said to have done that which is beyond the regulat, outside the ordinary, more than the usual or the unexpected. But there isn't any hint that these practices were wrong, unethical or against God. Just different than what one generally expects, atypical or uncharacteristic, like grafting a wild tree into a cultivated one (Rm 11:24: God acted unnaturally in grafting). To move the argument along, for Paul to speak of what is natural vs unnatural would be to speak of the active and passive roles "according to nature" sexually. But it is not to say that this is according to some natural laws. 

Finally Paul is dealing with a mixed and internally fractured Church of Jews and Gentiles in Rome. He opens up sounding like a Jew who is down on these unclean practices of the Gentiles. Late in Ch 2 he shows his hand by stating he's speaking to the Jews. Then by Ch 9 he begins speaking to the Gentiles. All this to say that the argument/structure of Rm is based off of 1: 26-27 being a--then--neutral topic, unlike foods offered to false God's or circumcision, for him to speak about not being a fractured church.


Arsenokoitai (A) and Malakoi (M):

This word (A) is used in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, (M) is used in 1Cor. Here's the catch, Paul is the first source for this word (A) in scripture and antiquity. As far as we know this word was invented by Paul to express...well something that pertains to the discussion. And honestly it wasn't defined as "homosexual" until the 1940s.


M is used often in scripture to mean soft. It is used of men and women; Mt 11:8 is an example where it is used of clothing. In 1 Cor 6:9 a good working definition would be "unrestrained" or "undisciplined." Effeminate seems to be a stretch for a definition because there is a lack of corresponding literature. And actually heterosexual guys who made themselves look good for the women would have been called M. But what we don't see here is evidence of homosexual activity. So if you're hoping for that then you are placing your money on A now.


(NC 17 below)

A is a compound Greek word that comes from the words man and bed. To be more precise the man involved is the active male partner in bed, the man-penetrator. Questions begin: is the man in question the one penetrating any other gender, or the male getting from another male, the penetration? We don't know. It's thought that A means a male prostitute to either sex or a male prostitute who seeks out the elderly for gain of the inheritance (see Juvenal). So if we land on "male prostitute" here then we have more room to throw our disdain at the prostitution aspect before the Homosexuality part. The second possibility about hustling the elderly doesn't have much backing. Pulling form another scholar A is seen as speaking to Homosexuality but between grown and adolescent males. So the issue isn't the Homosexuality but abuse and taking advantage of a child. So according to some scholars M and A can be seen as a pair and is reflected as such in, for instance, the NRSV and NEB revised ed. Helminiak believes that A may refer to male homosexual behavior, he just doesn't buy the M and A meaning the male giver and male taker. He believes some light may be shed on this via A being a literal translation of a Hebrew term.


Alexander the Great (yeah, I'm going there) brought Greek to the known world. A few years later the Old Testament gets translated into Greek. This is called the Septuagint or LXX. The LXX was the OT scripture quoted by the NT writers. Paul read from the LXX. So when in Leviticus (LXX) it says that a "man who lies with a man the lying of a woman...." it has two Greek words right together "arsenos koiten" which we believe Paul superglued together to make arsenokoitai (A). If this is the case then Paul is repeating the quotation from Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13. The argument against this, if the above is the origin of A, is that this law for purity is among those purity laws Jesus and further Christian teachings reject as purity for the concerns of the ethical. Second is the question of why would Paul use male to male sex as an example in Rm as listed above and show no concern about it there then in two other Pauline works condemn the practice?  


Again, due to the rare occurring of A Helminiak offers us another possibility that would have been common in Greco-Roman culture. This takes A in the context of 1 Tim where the word is sandwiched between sexually immoral and slavery and would mean A is sinful because that person purchases people to sexually abuse. But it is not listing A as sinful because of male to male relations.


This is the best and deepest work on the subject from an affirming perspective. I recommend it for anyone who wants to dive into this topic. For a negating perspective read Preston Sprinkle's "People to be Loved." But for God's sake, as both these works I've mentioned--affirming and negating--do, lead with the love of Jesus as to "what you stand for."


#WhatTheBibleReallySaysAboutHomosexuality #DanielAHelminiak #DanielHelminiak #Homosexuality #HomosexualityAndScripture #BiblicalScholarship

[AJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting read; it challenges the "traditional" views dominating the current ideas and beliefs of conservative Christianity. Although I am no scholar, the argument presented is persuasive. Hopefully this book will supply understanding and give a new perspective to individuals who find it difficult or impossible to accept one’s sexual preference.

Excerpts:

“Custom was turned into the law of God. A matter of mere social inconvenience was turned into a matter of morality.”

“In all those cases, Paul uses the term ‘nature’ to imply what is characteristic of peculiar in this or that situation. You would not expect a Jew not to be a Jew or the uncircumcised not to be uncircumcised. That is you would not expect someone raised as a Jew to be ignorant of the Jewish law, and you would not expect a Gentile to act like a Jew; that is not in their ‘nature.’”

“We have already seen that Paul uses two different kinds of words to describe the Gentiles’ deeds. He calls their sexual deeds degrading, shameful, dishonorable. He calls their other deeds wicked, evil, malice. The terminology itself shows a deliberate contrast between what is socially objectionable and what is ethically wrong.”

[Kaye · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author does a good job of picking apart the few phrases throughout the bible that seemingly condemn homosexuality. In many of the cases, the writer (of the particular book within the bible) seems to be making a point of something not being socially acceptable, rather than sinful. In some interpretations, phrases such as "unnatural relations" have been later edited to mean homosexuality, when the actual word could be more directly translated to "not in the usual way." So, does not in the usual way mean that the writer is speaking of homosexuality, or that they are talking about something other than missionary position?

Whichever side of the fence you sit on in this issue (and I am on the side that homosexuality is most definitely NOT a sin), it would behoove you to give this book an open minded read.

[Molly · Rating 5 out of 5]

with a forward written by Jon Spong, this book offers an incredible insight to the variance of a literal and interpretive understanding of the Bible. Offers the perspective of a large movement of ivy league scholars digging into every aspect of the Bible....primarily into the context of when the Bible was written and how the message translated then opposed to how it translates in our current society. Wait for it...polar opposites. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

[Paul Froehlich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel Helminiak analyzes all seven Biblical texts on homosexuality. He concludes his analysis this way: “The Bible takes no direct stand on the morality of homo-genital acts as such nor on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships.” Christians of good will can disagree, but they must refute Helminiak’s scholarship if they hope to persuade.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thumbed through this book a couple of times and have been disappointed every time. The book isn't scholarly at all. It really doesn't dive into the issues in depth. Being an older book it uses some arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. I would recommend you leave this one on the self.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great for anyone who doesn't want to read through John Boswell's scholarly efforts. You can be gay and Christian, if that's an issue for you.

[Matthew Cawthon · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the more prominent treatments of the subject at hand, of course. Helminiak has done his research -- though often others did the heavy lifting, including the wonderful and late John Boswell -- and makes a strong case not necessarily for a Biblical endorsement of homosexuality, but for the fact that the Bible simply has nothing to say on the matter that is relevant to our current understanding of queerness and sexuality. He makes it quite clear that it's really quite impossible to take these isolated moments, of which there are barely a handful (once you negate something like the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, which really must be removed from any serious treatment of this conversation), and deploy them as a Biblical stance on a subject that simply wasn't the same as it was centuries ago. Helminiak wonderfully illustrates that same-sex relationships at the time of Biblical writing were both very common and very different from what we know of them today; he argues that pitting these writers' necessarily context-dependent writings against our current conversation is mostly foolish while reminding readers time and again of the Bible's clear calls to love and faith.

It is unlikely to change the minds of the most hardline fundamentalists, as perceived tradition obviously guides certain denominations/believers a certain way when the questions and answers reach their murkiest, especially as some chapters are necessarily quite dry. This topic does require lengthy breakdowns of a few single words, and it's hard to make that sort of thing particularly exciting. It can also be quite difficult to grapple with the reality that we simple don't have an answer on some of these questions due to historical distance. Another issue is that Helminiak seems occasionally unconcerned with reaching the readers that perhaps most need this text -- he tends to take a tone that presumes an immediate sympathy for his cause, as though he believes his readers are largely progressive Christians who simply have not found a way to articulate their support of the LGBT+ community (this would include queer individuals of faith, of course). One also suspects that the text does not benefit from the steamy, soapy take on the Jonathan/David/Saul saga. While it's important to note that the OT is, well, often soapy and dramatic, this lengthy section does very little for his already-strong argument and its indulgence might actively turn off many readers, regardless of the fact that this homoerotic understanding of David's and Jonathan's relationship is decidedly not new.

But an historical-critical understanding of the Bible should be necessary for any modern Christian, and this is basically required reading for anyone who wants to understand how best to approach the Bible and its treatment of a still-divisive topic. Helminiak's purpose is to remind readers of the importance of context, that translation is always an interpretive affair, and that issues like homosexuality just do not receive clear treatment from the Bible. Vexed issues necessitate complex discussion. Helminiak offers a great, nuanced place to start (and maybe finish) the talk on one of the biggest problems still dividing today's Church.

[Connor Mooneyhan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the arguments in here are quite nice and tight, but these are for the more obscure and vague passages like Jude and 2 Peter. He also gives a quick presentation of a few conjectured instances of homosexuality in Biblical stories in his final chapter before the conclusion, and this chapter was fun but he is very cautious to draw any definite conclusions about these, so I appreciate his humble presentation and don't count it as much more than that.

The discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably the most valuable thing here for someone unfamiliar with the scholarship surrounding the "real" sin of Sodom (inhospitality). He takes it a bit too far in my reckoning, but overall it seems solid. In Leviticus a similar thing happens where he stresses the point of it addressing purity rather than morality, and there is much in this discussion that is useful for those who may not have much experience thinking about those categories, but there is also much that is overstated in his treatment. Overall, his conclusion is too reductionist, nearly assuming that purity does not in any sense have implications for morality, but not too much damage is done if this is taken with a grain of salt. My biggest problem with this book, then, is his general tendency to overstate his case and assure the reader that even though the matter has already been settled, he will now heap more evidence onto the pile that will also confirm his conclusion. This is best seen in his treatment of Romans 1, in which he makes a series of points that are increasingly dependent on the previous ones, but none of which are established nearly as firmly as he seems to think. He uses phrases such as "this conclusion seems certain" (pg. 80) while following it up later with "there is considerable debate on this matter" (pg. 83) and then concluding the section by suggesting that his proposed answer to the question under review has been established "definitely" (pg. 86). It is this sort of posturing which pervades the book but finds its locus in the chapter on Romans that makes this book hard to recommend. To be sure, it has shaped my opinion on many if not most of the texts he discusses, but in the end I would be very cautious to recommend this to people.

In his annotated list of sources at the end, a couple of works piqued my interest and I might look at them in the future. They may be good alternatives for the section concerning Romans (though I haven't read them!):

Furnish, Victor Paul (1979). "Homosexuality." In The Moral Teaching of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon Press, pages 52-83.
"A brief but thorough study of the Christian Testament texts on homosexuality by a specialist in Pauline ethics."

Brooten, Bernadette J. (1996). Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

[Kevin Hogg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does an excellent job of collecting scholarship on biblical texts and their historical contexts. It goes through each reference to homosexuality, both the undeniable mentions and the alleged ones as well. The introductory paragraphs explain clearly why literal translations of the Bible just don't work--they will inevitably be coloured by the author's bias and societal norms.

The author does a particularly strong job of discrediting anti-gay beliefs based on Old Testament texts. While it won't convince everyone, readers with any degree of objectivity will have to acknowledge that the issue isn't as black-and-white as many contemporary religious leaders have claimed. There is more than a healthy dose of reasonable doubt of "traditional" (read: as of the 20th century) views, and the case against these readings is often overwhelming.

In some of the New Testament references, he continues to build a strong case, often in multiple ways for each. Some seem fairly conclusive. Others just can't be answered, but Helminiak shows why the inclusive view appears to be better supported by historical evidence and linguistic analysis. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? It sure doesn't seem like it. Does analysis of the Bible support making homosexuality the line-in-the sand that conservatives portray it as, all the while ignoring or even trampling on a long list of other topics that are addressed more directly? Certainly not. An excellent and fairly quick read, with a good list of other sources that will be of interest to readers.

[Alexander Dunford | Writer | Artist · Rating 5 out of 5]

A necessary book for those deconstructing. Homosexuality never was a sin, and we should be grateful for the scholarship, like Helminiak's book here, being done. I have struggled over this very issue since I was a teenager. It is like I am learning my faith all-over-again. Critics call this progressive christianity, but, and this is honest, it is academic scholarship. It is about the facts. And these facts are God never condemns homosexuality, we have to read the original manuscripts, and investigate every translation error and cultural influences and conformities over two-millenia and how those moved western christianity—us white folks—toward an anti-LGBT perspective. But we know, now, that this was never the ancient's problem; they had no concept of homosexuality or heterosexuality, even in ancient Israel male-male sex was common. Sure, the Bible condemns certain sexual practices, but not the sexual orientation itself. We have to read the foundations of our faith with eyes wide open and always look at the greater picture; we must explore the bible with those, long gone, cultures world-views in mind.

Here, theology marries the discipline of history—get to the truth of the matter. I hope this book ages well. He was brave to publish it when he did. God bless him.

Happy Reading,
www.w-alexander.com

[Jamie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was raised Christian but had a complete falling out with religion when I realized I'm queer. I wanted nothing to do with anything having to do with church or God or anything. Then, I made a joke in one of my 10th grade classes about me going to hell for being gay, and a teacher who overheard pulled me aside and handed me this book. I read it in one sitting and cried the entire time. I don't care if it's historically or factually accurate, I couldn't tell you if it is or not. It took the part of me that had been smashed to pieces by the church and stitched it back together. This book let me love God again, not as many Christians think I should, but as myself: a gay, trans person who is not going to hell, who is not going to change, who was made by God to be just the way I am. I recommend this especially to queer people with religious trauma but also to every Christian who has ever loved a queer person, who has ever met a queer person, or who plans on voting in government elections.

[Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helminak carefully examines the few verses in the Bible that are referenced when homosexuality is discussed in the church. This work first came out in the early 1990s and was intended to be accessible to the average reader who hasn't been to seminary. The perception we have today of a person who lives in a committed monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex was not a part of the worldview of the Levite priest or the Apostle Paul. For the Hebrew scripture he looks at ritual purity and bodily fluids. For Paul he examines how he wrote about same sex genital penetration.
Helminiak does offer counter perspectives to his own in this book. Sometimes his exegesis feels a bit forced. All-in-All this is a good text to counter the traditionally, heterosexual bias of preachers on the topic of homosexuality. References to same sex acts are mentioned far less in the Bible than debate in mainline denominations would often suggest.

[Derek L. · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A historical-critical approach reads the Bible in its original historical and cultural context. This approach takes the Bible to mean, as best as can be determined, what its human authors intended to say in their own time and in their own way. Understood on its own terms, the Bible was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today (p. 131)."

One of the things that is important to me when it comes to theology books is the author's approach to studying the Bible. Daniel Helminiak is on the mark when it comes to approaching what is known as the clobber verses of the Bible. His interpretation of the original languages also was very necessary, and well written.

This was an enjoyable read, one I will refer to when I need to.

[José Ignacio Gallo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parecido a “Building a Bridge”, pero con una complejidad teórica y teológica mucho más densa, este librito pone sobre la mesa una interpretación histórico-crítica de los escritos bíblicos que comúnmente se interpretan como haciendo alusión a la homosexualidad. Llega a un montón de conclusiones medio impredecibles (a veces, siento, se tiene que doblar y dar unos giros bien grandes para lograr a una interpretación no-discriminatoria), a través de una aproximación hermenéutica y etimológica de los textos, así como aterrizando a sus autorxs y personajes en su momento histórico. Todo esto para decir que la Biblia no dice mucho sobre la homosexualidad (mucho menos sobre otras disidencias sexogenéricas), y lo que dice, lo dice en un contexto cultural específico, con relación a una ley judía particular y situada.

Todo bien (:

[Greg Schloesser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Author Daniel Helminiak, Phd is a retired Roman Catholic priest. He has extensively studied sexuality and homosexuality, and his book What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality is a bestseller and a true classic. I truly appreciate that he carefully researches and examines each and every verse in the Bible that can be construed to mention homosexuality and/or homogenital behavior. He studies the historical context in which the verse was written, the intended audience, the original Hebrew and Greek words and phrases that were used and how all of this may relate to today's issues. He is thorough yet concise, completing the book in just 110 pages.

Of the half-dozens or so books I have read on the subject, this is the clearest and most enlightening. Every Christian fundamentalist should read and ponder this book and the points Helminiak espouses.
HIGHLY recommended

[Erick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two chapters were a hard read only because they spent a lot of time on translating words from Greek. Since I don't have the time to study Greek or Hebrew I can take this interpretation (pun intended) as either a reach to fit one's own desire to feel okay in the biblical sense with being gay or that it shows that there is a realistic possibility that some words and meanings were either misunderstood by past biblical scholars whether intentionally through prejudices and past social mores and that the Bible has no negative stance on homosexuality, through sincere actions, or were correctly translated by the help of the Holy Spirit. Whatever the truth is we are instructed in Philippians 2:12 to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling."

[Michael Lachance · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel came to Kennesaw State U. in the late 90's to discuss the book and its evidence. There were protesters there who sought and tried to interrupt the flow of information. I don't need another person to tell me what to do with the information; I can figure it on my own.

He handled the matter well and handled the loudmouths well too.

The details are unique and Daniel has a history in Religion that gives way to any false pretense.

It's a well written book with more definitive readings from the text/translations.

[Melissa Abercrombie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I’ve read about Biblical hermeneutics. It’s honest about what truly cannot be determined and presents all sides of the translational perspectives in a matter-of-fact, unbiased manner.

Should be requisite reading for Christians, especially those with gay kids in their family. If a person truly needs to allay spiritual angst about homosexuality, this is the apologia for you.

[Alexa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow really great stop on my road of deconstructing the fundamentalist views I was taught. I didn’t even realize there was another way to read the Bible outside of a literal interpretation. Hadn’t fully considered the shortcomings of translating an ancient document. This is a great first step to lead me into further research I’m so grateful my local library had it.

[Jed Sanford · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you want to offer a revisionist interpretation of some biblical passages, that is fine. But to repeatedly claim that all real biblical scholars who use the historical critical method agree with your interpretation, when in fact most agree with the traditional interpretation, is ridiculous and unethical.

[Darren · Rating 4 out of 5]

This works for me as a solid, direct summary of many of the linguistic/historical nuances it wants to cover, but the later short sections added in the revised “Millenium” edition dealing with 1st Samuel and Ruth regarding get a bit too speculative for my tastes. It’s fairly well sourced and organized beyond those issues, though. Does what it sets out to do as a “popular” analysis of these topics.