Religion:Abomination (Biblical)

In the Bible, to-e-vah means: "an abomination (abhorrence, something abhorred)." It can also be defined as "an unclean thing" because unclean animals or food were abhorred. It refers to [unclean food, an idol, idolatry, outrageous conduct (violence, murder), adultery, etc.]. It is a Hebrew noun formed from the verb root ta-av "he abhorred [despised, hated, detested] (Amos 6:8). (Prov. 6:16-19 NKJV) says: "These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren."

Kinds of Abomination(s)

תועבה To-e-vah [117x]

To-e-vah (To-e-ḅah) means: "an abomination, abhorrence, abhorrent act, despicable act (deed) & taboo." The word "abomination" is actually of Latin origin and means: "abhorrence." It's not to be confused with any modern corrupted and hateful meaning. The Greek translation of to-e-vah in the Torah, Ketuvim and Nevi'im was rendered as βδελυγμα "something despised;" which is from the verb infinitive: βδελυσσω "to despise [abhor]" (Ex. 1:12; 5:21; Lev. 11;11, 13; etc.). To-e-vah is a regular word that could technically refer to anything that someone or God abhors (despises). However, the Bible specifically mentions the following as an "abomination." It was an abomination for the Egyptians to eat le-khem [bread or food] (Gen. 43:32) with the Hebrews, who were shepherds of flocks (Gen. 46:34) and herds (Deut. 12:21). Perhaps it was due to their different religions, or that it was unlawful (see Vulgate Translation), or that the Hebrews were foreigners, or because of their diet and the subsequent contamination of the utensils. According to (Ex. 8:22 [26] Onqelos Tg), the Hebrews were sacrificing the cattle of the Egyptians [2x]; which they were worshipping. The Masoretic Text there literally says: "... for shall we sacrifice to YHWH our God [what is] an abhorrent act by Egypt (the Egyptians). If we shall sacrifice what the Egyptians abhor [i.e. the abhorrence to Egypt] before their eyes, shall they not also stone us?" Other "abhorrences" include: "sexual sins (incest, during a woman's monthly period, adultery, bestiality), causing one's offspring to pass through [the fire] to Molech, carved, graven or molten idols and idolatry (the service [worship] of other gods or nature [sun & moon], anyone advising and leading others astray to follow [serve & worship] other gods, eating unclean animals, sacrifices of animals with a blemish or serious flaw, divination (magic, soothsaying, observing signs), lying (deceiving, cheating, false witness), murder (killing the innocent), theft, the hypocritical sacrifice or prayer of the wicked ones or one who causes his ear to turn away from hearing the Law [i.e. seeking atonement or requesting without repentance], etc. Non-Biblical things which could also be considered to-e-voth "abhorrences," but are not referenced, are pederasty, etc.

שקץ She-qeṣ (She-qeẓ) [11x] or [16x]

Alternately sheqets (she-keṣ, shekeẓ, sheketz) means: "abomination (detestable thing, loathsome thing)," and is from the QAL verb stem sha-qaṣ "he abhorred [detested, etc.]" (Ps. 22:24). That QAL verb stem isn't used in the Bible, but nouns with two "e" vowels are made from the QAL stem. The Masoretic Text (Bible) has the noun she-qeṣ only referring to unclean animals (creatures) forbidden as food (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13, 20, 23; etc.). Those unclean animals (creatures) were abhorred (detested) as food as well as their carcasses (Lev. 11:11). However, we can reason that sheqets also refers to any "unclean thing" (i.e. filth, etc.) and not just "unclean food." That is because the following state of being noun carries that verbal noun meaning. A regular verbal noun, would also carry the same verbal noun meaning of "a state of being noun." That's seen elsewhere for other Hebrew words. It's also reasonable to believe that she-qeṣ means "a detestable idol" for the same reason; that's even if shiq-quṣ is the correctly vowelled word in five disputed places. There may be five more instances of this noun if it was sometimes mis-vowelled as shiq-quṣ "detestation" [the related "state of being noun]. Those occurrences are in the singular and are spelled with the same three consonants only, i.e. [sh-q-ṣ]. It just looks odd that the singular is shiq-quṣ there (1 Ki. 11:5, 7; 23:13). Re-vowelling it to she-qeṣ would literally show that it has the meaning of "a detestable idol" there.

There is nothing in those five verses with the disputed word(s) that indicate that the noun is shiq-quṣ "detestation" [the original Hebrew Text didn't have vowels]. There is no vav to indicate the "u" sound and hence show that the word in question is shiq-quṣ. The "state of being" meaning doesn't make much sense there nor is it given for the translation. Those two things indicate that she-qeṣ "a detestable thing" is the most obvious candidate for the actual word there.

Sheqeṣ definitely looks like a legitimate synonym of to-e-vah "abhorrence" when the "abhorrence" is an "idol, idolatry and/or unclean thing (food, animal). There are Bible verses where shiq-quṣ-im and to-e-voth "detestations" appear in the same verse; where a distinction of meaning is meant there. So it is reasonable that she-qeṣ would mean "a detestable idol (an unclean thing)" while to-e-vah would mean "a detestable deed" when coupled together.

(שקץ) שקוץ Shiq-quts [28x] or [23x]

Shiq-quṣ is literally the state of being form of the Piel verb stem shiq-qeṣ "he caused to be detested (detested)." That means this noun retains the verb root meaning plus the ending of either: "-ion, -ness or -ing." So shiq-quṣ means: "a detestation [by someone] (thing [deed, idol] detested)." It's often translated into the Syriac as ܛܢܦܘܬܐ tan-pu-tha "uncleanness (unclean thing [deed])" hence" "detestation (detestable thing [deed, idol])." The plural shiq-quṣ-im means: "uncleannesses (unclean things);" i.e. "filth" at (Naḥum 3:6), which says: "I will throw unclean things (filth) on you ..." The Masoretic Text has shiq-quṣ referring to "a detestable idol" plus "uncleanness (pollution, impurity)" and/or maybe any "detestation (detestable act)."

Shiq-quts also looks like a legitimate synonym of to-e-vah "abhorrence" when it carries that meaning versus its literal meaning of "abhorrness (detestation)." State of being nouns [see EXAMPLE] can also have the regular verbal noun meaning, which is she-qeṣ "something detested (detestable thing)." They are synonyms because their noun form is made from the same verb root of sha-qaṣ "detested." Both are also synonyms of to-e-vah because it is also a verbal noun made from a verb with the same meaning - i.e. "abhorred (detested)." Additionally, their Hebrew verbs: sha-qaṣ and ta-av "he abhorred (detested)" and shiq-qeṣ "he made detestable (detested)" are likewise synonyms. Only two out of those three verbs are used in the Bible, but they are used interchangeably and in the same contexts. So, all that means is that to-e-vah, she-qeṣ, and shiq-quṣ share at least two out of the three main meanings in the same contexts. Only the third meaning of to-e-vah "a detestable act" is in dispute.

EXAMPLE: A STATE OF BEING NOUN

Qo-desh "holiness" is one example of a state of being noun that also shares the meaning of the related regular stative noun (adjective) qa-dosh "holy (-thing)." Qo-desh can also mean: "holy thing," which is usually the word qa-dosh. They are related because they were both formed by the same verb qa-dash "he [it] was holy (set apart, sanctified).". - ex. "and they shall not profane the holinesses (holy things) of the sons of Yisrael which they shall offer to YHWH" (Lev. 22:15).

פגול Piggul [4x]

Pig-gul "unclean (putrid)" is also translated as "abomination." Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as "a foul thing (refuse)." The Greek translation translated it as "defilement (pollution)" while the Syriac has the word ܡܣܠܝܐ mas-il-ya: "something rejected [an abhorrence, unclean thing]" (Lev. 7:18) and ܛܢܦܐ tan-pa "unclean thing" (Ezek. 4:14). The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible defines this Hebrew word as: "something that stinks or is rotten." In the Bible and Rabbinic literature, it refers to the state of the flesh of the sacrifice after three days or the condition of unclean meat (swine, etc.).

1st Note:

To-e-vah "abhorrence" doesn't also mean a "horror" (e-mah, pal-la-ṣuth or zal-a-phah) or "shock" (sham-mah, etc.). Those are different Hebrew words and feelings. Hebrew nouns only have the "thing or person" meaning of the verb. They can also have the extended meaning, which is "unclean thing" in this case. So some of the "abhorrent deeds (things)" could be a "horror" or "shock," but that isn't part of the meaning of to-e-vah. That's also self evident because not every "abomination" is a "horror or shock" from a respective person's perspective.

2nd Note:

There is no reason or basis to believe in three degrees of abomination, meaning one "abomination" is at a higher abhorrent degree. What has precedence in the Hebrew language and what appears to be the case here, is that both to-e-vah and she-qeṣ literally mean "an abhorrence (a detestable thing)," because their verb root shares the same first meaning. However, because there was a need for a distinction between all abhorrences (unclean things)" and both "detestable idols (unclean things)" and only "an unclean thing (pig-gul)," the verbal nouns didn't rebound to be synonyms in everything, as is often the case. Nevertheless, the latter two are synonyms of to-e-vah when they are used instead of that word. There is no higher or lesser degree. That concept appears to be a false tradition which may have been put forth due to LGBTI hatred. The noun she-qeṣ "a detestable thing" may have gotten vowelled as shiq-quṣ "a detestation" to facilitate that doctrine.

It's unlike Hebrew to have a word mean a higher degree of anything, especially if it isn't embedded in the verb root. If to-e-vah meant a higher degree of abomination, then we would expect the verb root ta-av, to mean something like: "to abhor exceedingly." That would make the noun to-e-vah mean: "an excessive abhorrence." However, the Lexicons: Brown-Driver-Briggs, NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, don't list (define) a higher degree of abhorrence for either the noun or the verb root. Additionally, the Aramaic, Greek and Latin translations of to-e-vah and she-qeṣ just use synonym words for each translation; which don't indicate any higher level of abhorring.

At (Deut. 7:26), there are two shades of meaning when the verbs shiq-qeṣ and ta-av appear together in the same verse; much like when the nouns shiq-quṣ-im and to-e-voth appear in the same verse. There is no higher degree of abhorrence. That verse is saying: "And you shall not bring an abomination (to-e-vah: idol) into your house, lest you shall be a devoted thing to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest (root: shiq-qeṣ) it [as an unclean thing] and you shall utterly abhor (root: ta-av) it [as an abhorrent thing], for it is an accursed thing." The other six verses show shiq-qeṣ by itself, with the same contextual meanings as ta-av. They are synonyms.

Lastly, the following is to show that their noun meanings overlap and that they are very much synonyms. (Deut. 14:3) says: "you shall not eat any abomination (to-e-vah: unclean thing)." The Aramaic translation of that verse translates to-e-vah with a word that has a first meaning of: "unclean thing," but has an extended meaning of "an abhorrence." To-e-vah is also sometimes translated as "unclean thing" in the Greek Old Testament as well. So to-e-vah doesn't just mean "abomination (abhorrence)." Separately, and back to the comparison, (Lev. 11:10-13, 20, 23, 41; etc.) tells us that: "anything that doesn't have a fin and scales or creeps in the waters or in the rivers, particular birds, flying insects going on all four legs, etc. are an abomination (she-qeṣ)."

The fourth word pig-gul looks like it started out with the meaning of "unclean thing." From that it got the extended meaning of "abomination (abhorrence, abhorrent thing)." The Bible only has it refer to unclean (putrid) meat. So it may be different from the other three words and NOT mean: "an abhorrent act (idol)."

3rd Note - Speculative Possibility [though it is unclear if the Hebrew Bible (or Language) supports the following]:

Since she-qeṣ and to-e-vah "a detestable thing" are verbal nouns which are made from verbs meaning "detested," that may indicate that they are synonyms in every respect; hence she-qeṣ would refer to the other to-e-voth "abhorrences." The Bible isn't going to have every occurrence of its usage plus nouns usually carry the same contextual meanings of their verb root. The QAL stem (sha-qaṣ) is going to have the same contextual meanings as this Piel Stem (shiq-qeṣ), i.e. "detesting [unclean things (food), idols or idolatry, plus other things]. That verb stem refers to an "other thing" being "detested" at (Ps. 22:24). Also, some of the shiq-qu-ṣim "detestations" (related state of being noun) may collectively refer to the other things. Additionally, it may not be a problem that they sometimes have distinct meanings, when accompanied together in the same verse. There are other instances of a Hebrew word that is rich in meaning and can include the meaning of another word in a verse. When combined, it has a distinct or limited meaning from the other word. Furthermore, the Aramaic translations of the first two words are also synonyms of each other with all the same meanings of to-e-vah "an abomination." The 4th century Latin Vulgate also has both to-e-vah and she-qeṣ sometimes translated as ab-o-mi-na-ti-o "abhorrence" (Ex. 8:26; Lev. 18:22, 26, 29; Prov. 16:5; etc. and Lev. 11:10; 41-42; etc.). That noun is from the verb ab-o-mi-nor - "to abominate (abhor, detest, etc.)." Otherwise, the Hebrew word to-e-vah is also translated as the synonym de-tes-tan-tur "a detestable thing" (Gen. 46:34) and she-qeṣ is sometimes translated as ex-e-cran-dus "detestable thing" (Lev. 11:11, 23). It is also translated as: in-mun-dus or pol-lu-tus "unclean thing" (Lev. 7:21; 11:12). So there is some early translation testimony that seems to indicate that to-e-vah and she-qeṣ are equal synonyms and that maybe she-qeṣ having a limited meaning always is made up. If so, then that is another reason that there is no such thing as "a higher abhorrent degree" between the words.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Hebrew language sometimes makes a distinction between the two words may hypothetically be a legitimate reason that the third common meaning wasn't established; despite the Piel Stem shiq-qeṣ being used for the "other things" (see Ps. 22:24). The translated Aramaic words may have the additional synonym meanings because they are also translations of other Hebrew words. They aren't the same Shemitic words made from the same three letter root.

Latin words in English Bible

The English Bible, starting at least from the KJV (1611) and onwards, has Latin origin words in it that are meant to have the full Latin meaning to them. Because they are not originally of English origin, the English language has changed their meaning. "Abomination" is one of those words. It means "abhorrence." A few other Latin origin words in the English Bible are: "ca-ri-tas (charity), pas-tor-es (pastors), sci-en-ti-a (science), etc." The following is what the Latin words mean. Ca-ri-tas means "love" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1-2; etc.). Pas-tor-es literally means "shepherds," but at (Eph. 4:11), it has the metaphorical meaning. There it refers to "priests or wise men " (Zech. 10:3; Eccl. 12:11; Jer. 2:8; 3:15; 12:10; 34:2-3, 5, 7-8; etc.) or "kings, queens, leaders, lords, etc." (Num. 27:17; 2 Sam. 5:2; 1 Ki. 22:17; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:1-4; 25:36; etc.). The "priest" was seen as the "shepherd" while the "flock" was seen as his "congregation" OR the "king" was the "shepherd" and the "flock" was his "people." Sci-en-ti-a means "knowledge" (1 Tim. 6:20).

When we reference the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word underlining the Latin word, we see that the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word doesn't match our current English understanding of: "abomination, charity, pastor, science, etc."

Judaism

Monogamous homosexual unions shouldn't be considered as an "abomination." Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not translated correctly. The mistranslations could be due to the translator(s) ignorance, bias, hatred, etc. They say something similar in Hebrew. The correct rendering of (Lev. 18:22) is “You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding (or bed) of a woman (or wife), it is an abhorrence (a despicable act).” The Bible doesn’t always tell us why something is “despised (abhorred, despicable),” and hence we have to use reason. Maybe one of the men was married and was committing adultery (see Lev. 20:10-13). There it follows two verses against adultery. Also, the other participant would be guilty of sin too. Compare (Deut. 22:22). - (Jer. 7:9-10) lists "adultery" among the abominations (abhorrences)." "Adultery" is in fact "something abhorred" because it can bring disease into a relationship or "illegitimate children and their financial upbringing, property transfer outside of the family or tribe, etc." Separately, maybe the two men were also having sex on the bed of the woman to despise her and rub it in her face that she wasn’t woman enough. Reuḅen slept with his father’s wife on his dad’s bed to despise his father Jacoḅ. The act could have also been done to defile the bedding, and hence make it unclean. Otherwise, according to the book “How the People Lived in the Bible [HPLB], on pg. 117, it states: “The women’s portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men’s half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman’s quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael’s tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21).”

“There shall be no whore (qede-shah – female temple prostitute) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qa-desh – male temple prostitute) of the sons of Israel, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” (Deuteronomy 23:17-18 KJV). A Qa-desh is a “male temple prostitute” (BDB) or a "cult prostitute" (NAS). Qa-desh “male temple prostitute” is generic in meaning and could refer to either a heterosexual or gay male prostitute. Zo-neh "male prostitute" can be a synonym for it; meaning, the "male prostitute" can be a "male temple prostitute." However, zo-neh "male prostitute" is more broad in meaning. It can also mean: "he [who] commits fornication (prostitution, incest, etc.)." Thus the two words are to be distinguished from each other.

A Qa-desh "male temple prostitute" literally means: "a consecrated one" or "one set apart [for prostitution]" or "one made (kept) holy" or "a devotee (devoted or dedicated one)." It has basically the same pronunciation as the Piel Imperative qad-desh: "sanctify, hallow, consecrate, make holy, etc." Or the Piel Infinitive le-qad-desh: "to set apart, keep holy, etc." The QAL root is qa-dash: "it was set apart (consecrated)." From that verb we get the word qa-dosh: “holy, set apart,” miq-dash: "sanctuary (temple)," qo-desh: "holiness," etc.

Christianity

In the New Testament, Jude 1:7 literally says that the citizens of Sedom went after other flesh (people). Romans chapter 1 is referring to idolatry. It also says that God gave those idolaters up to their unclean (or abominable, wrong) desires. This led to both the women and the men changing their natural (or instinctual) use of each other. The root Aramaic word cyan means: nature, disposition and instinct. The only specified similarity between these heterosexual or bisexual women and men is that they both abandoned the natural sexual use of the opposite gender. Thus the use of these words doesn’t necessarily mean that the women or men slept with the same gender. The reader could also conclude that the women may have remained celibate (1 Tim. 4:3) or maybe were practicing bestiality (see Rom. 1:24). The end result being that the men attacked other men either by killing them or perhaps raping them. When it says the men "committed shame," this can mean the men raped the husband's wife, concubine or daughter (s). There are Biblical stories about this treatment of foreigners. Otherwise, the "shame" committed by these men may have been male rape. The text doesn't say which meaning is correct. Both meanings could be correct. Also, the words saying that "the women changed the instinctual use [of their sex into] that which is against their instinct" and "the men have left the instinctual use of women" (Lamsa) does not sound like gay people. It is natural for gay people to be with the same gender and is according to their instinct / disposition. Gay men or women have not left the opposite gender because they were never with them to begin with. The Aramaic text of 1 Corinthians 6:9 actually says that: ܡܚܒܠܐ "corrupters (destroyers, those who act corruptly [lawlessly], those corrupted by heresy)" and ܫܟܒܝ ܥܡ ܕܟܪܐ "those who rape men (or a man)" will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Yeshua said people are born gay (Matt. 19:12). The Bible affirms LGBTI relationships at: (Deut. 13:6; Josh. 23:12; Ben Sira 13:14-15 Heb. Text; 2 Corinth. 6:14; Rom. 13:9; etc.). Please read the original Hebrew or Aramaic text for the correct translation or visit the website www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com and the following.

Note:

It's been demonstrated that the Aramaic New Testament is the original while the Greek New Testament is a 1st century translation.

Islam

The Arabic text at (Surah 11:78) doesn't say that the people of Sedom were "in the habit of practicing ABOMINATIONS" (Abdullah Yusuf Ali). According to Quran.com, the Arabic says: "And his people came to him, rushing to him, and they had been doing THE EVIL DEEDS previously ..." That is interesting, because the Bible also says that the Sedomites were EVIL and SINNERS [offenders] (Gen. 13:13). People that are evil, since adjectives and nouns are made from a Shemitic verb root, means the persons were "doing evil (harm)." Offenders commit offences [against others]. Any type of evil (harm), violence, murder, rape, etc. is of course an abhorrence (abomination). So, the Arabic text of the Quran is saying that the Sedomites were doing THE EVIL DEEDS and "abominations" elsewhere. That sounds like the people were trying to rape or harm Lot's (Lut's) guests. The Quran also has Lot detailing (listing) their other abominations or sins, saying: "you cut off the road [pathway]" and "you commit evil in your meetings" (The Spider 29:29). Those deeds definitely sound like those people were "arrogant (proud, haughty);" which the Bible says that they were (Eze. 16:49-50).

Quranic translators have added words in their English translation that are not there in the Arabic. Or sometimes they hatefully mistranslate the Arabic words (i.e. "the evil deeds" as "abominations," etc.). The translators added the words [the men of] at (Hud 11:78), which is cited above. That makes the text say: "And [the men of] his people came to him, ..." It may not be justified because the Bible uses the words AN-SHE "the persons of" and AM "people" in Genesis chapter 19. (Gen. 19:4) says that "the persons of (AN-SHE) the city [i.e. the citizens], the persons of Sedom, surrounded the house ... ALL THE PEOPLE (HA-AM) from [every] end" was there. Indicators that females were also present. Additionally, the Hebrew word AN-SHE doesn't just mean: "the men of" (Gen. 19:4 KJV). It's a word that can include both genders.

 The Quran says: "or He (God) will join (yoke) together [marry] them, even the males and the females ..." (The Consultation 42:50). Or the verse can be translated without the word "them" as: "or He will marry the males [together] and [He will marry] the females [together] ..." See also Queer Sexuality and Identity in the Quran and Ḥadith If you think a verse wouldn't say: "God will marry [so and so]" when that is a human action, then think again. That verse sounds a lot like what Yeshua said at (Marcus 10:9) - "Therefore what God was joining together (yoking, uniting, marrying), let not man be separating."

The Quran specifically calls RI-JI-SUN "an abomination (dirty thing [act], atrocity; filthy)": "intoxicants, gambling, idolatry, divination" and "the flesh of the pig (swine) - for it is indeed filthy (RI-JI-SUN)." However, the final part may say: "for it is indeed an abomination (RI-JI-SUN); and hence also be a reference to the thing forbidden (MU-ḤAR-RA-MAN) to the eater: i.e. "... anything dead (carrion), blood poured out and a dedicated offering to any other than Allahu (God)," which we also know from the Bible are unclean things. Some also consider blasphemyan abomination. However, the Arabic text is saying something different there. (The Crouching 45:11) says: "This [Quran] is [true] guidance. And those who deny the verses of their Lord, for them [will be] a punishment (torment) of a painful RI-JI-SUN (abomination, atrocity)."

 The Quran teaches that it alone is sufficient for doctrine (7:2-3, 185; 45:6; 77:50; etc.); without ḥadith. It is clear and complete. There is no need for ḥadiths, which were largely fabricated. The traditional religious clergy have corrupted the religion of Islam. Yeshua also emphasized the Bible (God's word) over tradition, translation, the Aramaic Targum interpretations [which all of them may not be right, because additional words were impressed on the Biblical verse], or over what a particular Rabbi (Ravi) taught.

Religious acceptance and tolerance of LGBTI people

There are mixed views regarding homosexuality. Some realize that the Bible has been badly translated and used to control; and hence some discernment is in order. They look at what the original Hebrew and Aramaic words actually say versus the hateful, oppressive and forced interpretation of men over the centuries.