Because the posts in which they appear are falling further and further behind, and because many of them rely on the same or similar points, I will not be spending as much time and space in commenting on most of the rest of Ken's postings. For example, the remaining section of the Dictionary mostly concerns itself with defending the association of the "man-bedders" (arsenokoitai) in 1 Corinthians with the sin of "man-lying" (mishkav zakur) in Leviticus. I have already said I have no problem with that identification, so that is all I have to say about it.
The excerpt from the Apologetics Study Bible makes the serious mistake of claiming that the Jewish morbid fascination with "homosexuality" as sin is evidenced throughout the Bible, when in fact, the focus on, first, sexual sins, and then, "homosexuality" was a gradual process begun in the Post-Exlilc period.
The MacArthur excerpt points out the fact that Plato would have no reason to condemn "homosexuality" in general, but appears to be unaware that the passage in Romans originated in a work by Plato. In addition, it assumes, despite the evidence of both historical research and the words of the Bible, that the sin of Sodom was always and primarily identified as "homosexuality."
The Freedman article, on the other hand, deserves a closer look. Freedman caught the use of the five words Paul inserted, but he did not connect them to the sin of Passion. He recognizes the influence of the Jewish apocalyptic literature, but misses the more complete picture.
I'll look at the Freedman excerpt in my next post.