Answers to homosexuals on translation

[Interplanner]

Matt Slick, founder of CARM, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, has the essential answer about the homosexual claim that the word 'homosexual' did not appear in Bibles until the mid-20th century.

The term, he says, was developed by a German scientist in 1890s in the biological realm. It was the most distinct way of expressing the situation with its Greek and Latin roots. Prior to this 'sodomite' and 'pervert' were used. Slick argues it would take about 50 years for common usage to result in its use in Bible translation.

And, in any case, the word is the Greek 'arsenokoites' which is male-male intercourse. It is distinct from 'porne' but not far removed.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

The term "homosexual" was actually first published in 1869, then again in the 1880s - which was when it became better known, as the publication (Psychopathia Sexualis) became popular not only among doctors/etc but also laymen.

Also, "arsenokoites" was first used in the writings of Paul, and has little context outside that it is in a list of sins, to give us, now, a meaning. Likely, it was coined by Paul himself. And is only found in use after his use some 80 or so times, as far as we have found. It has been alternately used to describe masturbators (especially prior to the Reformation) as well as types of prostitution.

In some apocryphal texts, it is included among lists of monetary-based sins - prostitution. Some non-biblical, non-christian texts that used the term seemed to take it as a form of rape (such as the Apology of Aristides, where it is used in conjunction with Zeus raping Ganymede).
John the Faster (around 575AD) used it in conjunction with sexual sins of a man with his wife - particularly meaning any anal/oral sex, but nothing to do with homosexuality.

So, at the very least, it is rather not certain exactly what Paul meant.

 

[Red Fox]

Just a friendly reminder...

● Homosexuality may not be promoted* on Christian Forums. Homosexuality may only be discussed, without promotion, in our Congregation forums. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service

 

[graceandpeace]

And, in any case, the word is the Greek 'arsenokoites' which is male-male intercourse. It is distinct from 'porne' but not far removed.

No one knows with certainty what arsenokoites means. And CARM is a lousy resource.

Beyond that, an open conversation on homosexuality is not permitted by CF's rules.

 

[Interplanner]

?? I merely used Bauer-A-G's lexicon. We know what the two parts mean and 'koite' is intercourse. At most all you can say is we don't know what kind of that was meant in the case of male-male. I have essays by CARM and there is nothing lousy about it. It clears up any question about -phobia and about various social situations.

 

[Interplanner]

As for the context of 'arsenokoites' in Corinth, it is not in ch 7 which is all male-female marriage issues, not homosexual issues. It is a 'porne' but was not being discussed here because it was summarily dismissed as wrong, as in Rom 1. It is therefore not correct to say it is only a stand-alone item in a sin list, because 'porne' is the topic from ch 5:1 to 7:40, so there is plenty of context, and Rom 1 says it all in enough detail.

Not that male-female communication is therefore any simpler, but there is good help out there, enough to weather the storms.

 

[hedrick]

The modern concept of homosexuality includes the idea of orientation, not just specific acts. The idea of a distinct homosexual,orientation seems to be recent. However in normal English usage homosexual sex often refers to all same gender sex. Thus it's not so clear that its use in translations is wrong. I doubt that many people reading the current translations think they are referring only to actions resulting from a homosexual orientation.

 

[Tinker Grey]

?? I merely used Bauer-A-G's lexicon. We know what the two parts mean and 'koite' is intercourse. At most all you can say is we don't know what kind of that was meant in the case of male-male. I have essays by CARM and there is nothing lousy about it. It clears up any question about -phobia and about various social situations.

This is similar to believing that to understand is to stand under.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

?? I merely used Bauer-A-G's lexicon. We know what the two parts mean and 'koite' is intercourse. At most all you can say is we don't know what kind of that was meant in the case of male-male. I have essays by CARM and there is nothing lousy about it. It clears up any question about -phobia and about various social situations.

"koite" actually merely meant "bed". The meaning of intercourse, adultery and the marriage bed can all be attributed at times, and all euphemistically. And if we go the route of part + part = meaning literally, it could merely mean man + bed = sleeping man. Or lazy man.

We can also look at the fact the, in the vein of it meaning homosexual sex, there already was a greek conjoined word in use at the time for that very meaning - "androkoites", a bedder of men. ("homokoites" tended to refer to "bedfellows" in a non-sexual context)

 

[graceandpeace]

?? I merely used Bauer-A-G's lexicon. We know what the two parts mean and 'koite' is intercourse. At most all you can say is we don't know what kind of that was meant in the case of male-male. I have essays by CARM and there is nothing lousy about it. It clears up any question about -phobia and about various social situations.

CARM only presents a one-sided explanation on topics - it's a biast resource, which is why I labeled it as "lousy."

As another poster already pointed out, the context in which arsenokoites is used outside of the Bible & by St. Paul presents a challenge, as far as understanding what the term really meant. That is why I said the meaning of the term is uncertain.

 

[Interplanner]

It is not uncertain because Rom 1 gives details to form it (not your sin-list theory), and how many possibles are there for a compound of men + intercourse? If we really have the mind for it, I Cor 5-7 also gives enough detail so that we know what it means by default (by eliminating what he covers there: incest, adultery, etc.) Are there like a ton of sexual sins?

 

[Interplanner]

Well then Fenny, we should all be washing bedding twice a day to keep Heb 13 and we should all be watching out for sleeping men--a real cultural decay!

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

No one knows with certainty what arsenokoites means.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Well then Fenny, we should all be washing bedding twice a day to keep Heb 13 and we should all be watching out for sleeping men--a real cultural decay!

Well, as I pointed out, the meaning is accepted but euphemistic. The meaning of "koite" being sexual is an extension on the root, pure meaning of a bed/couch, where sex usually takes place. This is, yes, the meaning most used in the bible, but that was not my point. My point was that the meaning of simply saying man + bedding/sex =/= homosexual. That is a rather misleading way of determining meaning.

Hence my point earlier about there already being, at the time Paul coined "arsenkoite", a term in common use for homosexual intercourse. So how do we know, with certainty, that that is what he meant? And what do you make of the many varied interpretations over the years - as I pointed out in my first post in this thread?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

To add to the discussion, as it is seemingly directly related, what do we make of the combining of arsenokoite and malakos to both being sexual and in particular relating to homosexuality. Malakos has, until recently, been interpreted as being weak in character, even "effeminate" - being, at the time, a considered character flaw of weakness, and a term of belittlement even to the Greeks.

 

[FireDragon76]

John the Faster (around 575AD) used it in conjunction with sexual sins of a man with his wife - particularly meaning any anal/oral sex, but nothing to do with homosexuality.

So he was using it in the context of what would have been later called "buggary"- unlawful sex acts. But historically in Christian countries buggary came to be exclusively enforced against homosexuals. In modern times, very few Christians would consider heterosexual oral sex to be sinful (even the Catholic church does not in certain contexts).

It could be that the term arsenokoites was used loosely without a single definition, just as the term "Buggary" was thrown around until it lost the original meaning and came to refer to gay sex almost exclusively. If that's true, we may never know what Paul meant with certainty. I do believe it's likely he's referring to a type of person engaging in a sex act, however.

I tend to believe its referring to cross-dressing male prostitutes, malakoi arsenokoites , being tied together as a phrase. In the Roman world, a "soft" or effeminate man, a mollis (literally soft or weak), could also describe a cross-dressing man. They usually dressed like women and wore makeup, and often worked as male prostitutes. There was a huge cult, the cult of Attis and Cybele, whose male fallowers were almost exclusively castrated and dressed and lived as women, and they worked as prostitutes... and Paul probably was familiar with them. The Romans considered their behavior bizarre and deviant but, after a catastrophy, came to see the cult's deity Cybele as offering some protection for their state- but they were never entirely comfortable with them.

 

[Blue Wren]

This was interesting. Thank-you.

 

[Interplanner]

It seems to have been a catch-all of everything that was not monogamous heterosexuality. That's all I make of the other uses. That is prob why the solid translations of the Bible have alternated with 'perversion' etc. Do we have a word for seeking sex with angels, Gen 19? Would we need to?

 

[Alithis]

MOD HAT ON

HI folks , This thread has been moved from the Ethics & Morality forum to the Non denominational forum .

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[BryanW92]

MOD HAT ON ​

HI folks , This thread has been moved from the Ethics & Morality forum to the Non denominational forum .​

MOD HAT OFF​

Why?