A question for gays

[OllieFranz]

I didnt read all 4 pages so this might have gotten cleared up already but I see that people are already attacking the word used for homosexuals so I say we forget about that verse and just use the other verse given... it is pretty well laid out what he is speaking of huh?? I dont see where there could be a translation error in the other verse.

The problem with using the other verse given (Romans 1:26-27) is that Plato goes out of his way to make it quite clear that the sin involved is not homosexuality, but uncontrolled Passion. When Paul quotes Plato in the letter to the Romans, he makes a point of adding into key phrases the names of the five components of uncontolled passion, as a way of reminding his readers just where the sin lies. (See my post in the ST Paul's argument thread)

 

[Polycarp1]

OK, this is the reference I quoted. It is written by Dallas Theological Seminary faculty members which I believe makes it as a good and trustworthy reference. The book is titled, "The Bible Knowledge Commentary" for the new testament. The ISBN # is 0-88207-812-7. It is published by Cook Communications. If you contact the publisher I'm sure they will forward any questions you have about the Roman Emperors to the authors or editors for comment.

There are several reviews on the first page. One I like is from Dr. David Jeremiah, Senior Pastor, Shadow Mountain Community Church, San Diego, CA which states,

"At last...a commentary we can all believe in. Sunday School teachers and many others at our church will find The Bible Knowledge commentary extremely helpful!"

Not to impugn your good motives, Sacerdote, but I'd take issue with a work prepared by what I believe is a SBC seminary for probably the same reason as you likely would with something giving a liberal theological view out of an Anglican seminary. I'm sure you're referencing it in good faith, and I'm not slapping that down in any way, just pointing out that sources do often have biases -- on both sides of the debate.

 

[Chaplain David]

Not to impugn your good motives, Sacerdote, but I'd take issue with a work prepared by what I believe is a SBC seminary for probably the same reason as you likely would with something giving a liberal theological view out of an Anglican seminary. I'm sure you're referencing it in good faith, and I'm not slapping that down in any way, just pointing out that sources do often have biases -- on both sides of the debate.

Sources absolutely do make a difference. Here's their site if you want to take a peek. http://www.dts.edu

You'll note their diversity of involvement in protestant denominations. Most people don't understand Baptist Churches or the roles that organizations like the SBC and Cooperative Baptist fellowship have. First off, SBC doesn't have seminaries although some seminaries have chosen affiliation with them. DTS has not. The SBC is an organization that Baptist Churches, all of which are autonomous, can elect to join. They have various doctrinal views, some more conservative others less so. I think David Jeremiah's endorsement speaks a lot to the nature of the reference. He's definitely not an SBC Southern Baptist and I find his pastoring moderate yet upholding of the Word.

I was an Episcopalian in my youth. Twas my parent's compromise of Baptist and Catholic. Have fond memories of being an alter boy except when I was afraid of tripping while walking down to light the candle.

I don't want to derail my own thread so I'll stop here but I think that my views along with those quoted by the typical protestant Bible translations and the one Bible Knowledge Book speak for themselves. Yet the good thing about forums is that if one wants to speak with authority and assurance one has to research both the topics and the answers. I learn a lot. Otherwise the debate is just an "I think opinion message.

In Christ,

 

[BAFRIEND]

"Homosexual offenders" is an inaccurate translation, as there was no term "homosexual" at the time that Paul wrote.

If Paul actually meant all gay people, which is not at all clear, then he was wrong about this.

This line of argument is way off. It is called translating for a reason. It is precisely the job of the translators to provide people of other languages what the current meaning of the passage is.

Just to simply state that a word did not exist two thousand years ago is an invalid argument.

 

[BAFRIEND]

With the premarital pregnancy, and the current divorce rates, even within the church, people would have to look in the mirror first...

Not something many who are sitting in judgement and handing down condemnation are willing to do

I am willing to do it.

 

[cheese007]

It is precisely the job of the translators to provide people of other languages what the current meaning of the passage is.

You shot yourself in the foot with this one. To believe this is to believe that God is changing, which is impossible because he is always right, therefor he does not change. Don't you love how that works?

 

[Archer93]

I am willing to do it.

You are willing to look in the mirroe at yourself and then sit in judgements and hand down condemnation?
Impressive.
You aren't pregnant outside marriage or getting divorced, that's great. You have no other sin either? At all?

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

This line of argument is way off. It is called translating for a reason. It is precisely the job of the translators to provide people of other languages what the current meaning of the passage is.

Just to simply state that a word did not exist two thousand years ago is an invalid argument.

Words did exist, they just weren't used in that passage. And the more pertinent issue is that often people try to use outdated or dubious translations, with words that now mean something different in the same languages.

And you seem to assume that the translators always do their job perfectly. Are they superhuman?

Take Romans11:11 as a prime example:

1975 New King James: I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.


1611 King James: I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

1894 Scrivener New Testament: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτους

1550 Stephanus New Testament: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτους


Now, if you can't read Greek, you're either going to have to get someone else to translate or take my word here. My point is this:

In the 344 years between the two Greek translations being written, neither have changed a single word.
In the 364 years between the two King James Versions being written, they have changed.
But that's not the most interesting bit: both King James Versions (and many other translations based off them) include, highlighted in red, words that are translated in two different ways, because language use has changed. They've also changed the format into a rhetorical/answered question.

The verb in question can, and has been in bible versions, translated into the following English meanings:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]KJV (630) - God forbid + (3361), 15; arise, 13; be, 255; be done, 63; be fulfilled, 3; be made, 69; be married to, 3; be preferred, 3; become, 47; come, 52; come to pass, 82; done, 2; have, 5; misc, 4; not tr, 14; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]NAS (487) - accomplished, 1; appeared, 3; arise, 1; arises, 2; arose, 6; arrived, 3; became, 53; become, 83; becomes, 8; becoming, 2; been, 12; been brought, 1; been done, 1; been made, 2; been...came, 1; began, 1; behaved, 1; being, 2; being carried, 1; being done, 2; being made, 2; born, 5; breaking, 1; came, 45; came into being, 2; came to pass, 2; come, 16; come into being, 1; comes, 1; comes to pass, 1; coming, 1; dawn, 1; decided, 1; developing, 1; done, 20; drawing, 1; during, 1; elapsed, 1; existed, 1; falling, 1; feeling, 1; fell, 6; finished, 1; followed, 1; formed, 3; found, 2; get, 4; give, 1; got, 1; granted, 1; grown, 1; had, 1; happen, 6; happened, 46; happening, 5; happens, 3; has, 3; join, 1; joined, 3; made, 15; occur, 3; occurred, 18; performed, 4; prove, 7; proved, 6; proving, 1; put, 1; reached, 2; realized, 1; results, 2; show, 1; spent, 1; split, 1; spoken, 1; starting, 1; take place, 16; taken, 2; taken place, 5; takes place, 1; taking place, 3; there arose, 1; thundered, 1; took place, 7; turned, 1; turns, 3; would, 1; [/FONT]

So how do we know, for absolute certain, the translators were correct in their choice of words? And are still correct?

I use this example so that you can see that these arguments are not only present with regards to the "homosexuality" verses. It is not some ignorable conspiracy for homos to twist the Word of God. It is a basic fact due to the nature of the bible.

Want a bigger example of how easily the bible has changed due to man's influence? Go read a Jehovah's Witness bible. They will often tell you that it is great, perfect, really in keeping with the original texts. But they have carefully "translated" some things to suit their beliefs.

 

[Ohioprof]

Sources absolutely do make a difference. Here's their site if you want to take a peek. http://www.dts.edu

You'll note their diversity of involvement in protestant denominations. Most people don't understand Baptist Churches or the roles that organizations like the SBC and Cooperative Baptist fellowship have. First off, SBC doesn't have seminaries although some seminaries have chosen affiliation with them. DTS has not. The SBC is an organization that Baptist Churches, all of which are autonomous, can elect to join. They have various doctrinal views, some more conservative others less so. I think David Jeremiah's endorsement speaks a lot to the nature of the reference. He's definitely not an SBC Southern Baptist and I find his pastoring moderate yet upholding of the Word.

I was an Episcopalian in my youth. Twas my parent's compromise of Baptist and Catholic. Have fond memories of being an alter boy except when I was afraid of tripping while walking down to light the candle.

I don't want to derail my own thread so I'll stop here but I think that my views along with those quoted by the typical protestant Bible translations and the one Bible Knowledge Book speak for themselves. Yet the good thing about forums is that if one wants to speak with authority and assurance one has to research both the topics and the answers. I learn a lot. Otherwise the debate is just an "I think opinion message.

In Christ,

The SBC has long had congregational polity, but when two churches in Atlanta welcomed gay people without trying to get them to stop being gay, the SBC sought to punish the Atlanta Baptist Convention for refusing to kick these two churches out. Apparently congregational polity only goes so far. Individual churches have freedom to develop their own doctrinal positions, except on the subject of gay people and "homosexuality," it seems.

 

[Ohioprof]

This line of argument is way off. It is called translating for a reason. It is precisely the job of the translators to provide people of other languages what the current meaning of the passage is.

Just to simply state that a word did not exist two thousand years ago is an invalid argument.

Your argument is that translators understand the "current meaning" of something written long ago? You leave a lot to the interpretation and judgment of translators.

To translate a passage as saying "homosexuals" when that word and that concept did not exist when the sentence was written is to make an inaccurate translation.

 

[Archer93]

It is precisely the job of the translators to provide people of other languages what the current meaning of the passage is.

No. It really isn't. It is the job of the translator to provide people of other languages what the meaning of a word is in context. Given the extent to which words can change meaning over time, if you gave the current meaning you could be giving quite the wrong impression.

Example- Ben Johnson's The Alchemist.
In that play, 'punk' means a young woman who is probably a prostitute.
Now, of course, it referes to either an anarchic and aggressive aspect of the 70's British music scene, or possilby a young hoodlum a la Dirty Harry.

 

[Chaplain David]

The SBC has long had congregational polity, but when two churches in Atlanta welcomed gay people without trying to get them to stop being gay, the SBC sought to punish the Atlanta Baptist Convention for refusing to kick these two churches out. Apparently congregational polity only goes so far. Individual churches have freedom to develop their own doctrinal positions, except on the subject of gay people and "homosexuality," it seems.

All Baptist Churches are autonomous. They hire their own pastors through the deacons, congregational committees and membership vote. Most decisions that are made within involve the majority of membership's vote of yes or no. If the church chooses to allie itself with a doctrinal organizaton such as a convention or fellowship that organization can only excert control as far as the church will let it. The most the convention or fellowship can do if they do not like the goings on at a member church is kick the church out of the organization. It will however, remain a church, remain autonomous, and be self-governing.

 

[Chaplain David]

Your argument is that translators understand the "current meaning" of something written long ago? You leave a lot to the interpretation and judgment of translators.

To translate a passage as saying "homosexuals" when that word and that concept did not exist when the sentence was written is to make an inaccurate translation.

The practice of homosexuality certainly existed. I see too many references referring to the practice, many using the term sodomite. The concordances and commentaries agree.

So two questions I have are:

***What was the practice of homosexuality called in "those days you say that the term did not exist."

***And how have the majority of Bibles, commentaries, knowledge books and dictionaries come up with similiar definitions explaining that the practice of homosexuality is a sin gotten it wrong in your opinion? Is it a conspiracy against homosexuals or what IYO?

(Afterthought: I wonder if anyone here has a copy of George Lamsa's Bible translation from Aramaic and what it says about our subject?)

 

[kiwimac]

You are reading back into the passage what modern words mean. The meanings of words THEN are not the same. Heck, 1611 English is NOT the same so why should the meanings of Koine / LXX Greek and Hebrew words be similar enough to allow easy translation?

 

[Chaplain David]

You are reading back into the passage what modern words mean. The meanings of words THEN are not the same. Heck, 1611 English is NOT the same so why should the meanings of Koine / LXX Greek and Hebrew words be similar enough to allow easy translation?

Kiwimac, were you referring to one of my comments or someone elses? If so I'd like to be couteous and comment.

What Bible translation do you use?

God bless you.

 

[Criada]

Just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to read a thread about this subject which has not become acrimonious and personal!

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

You are reading back into the passage what modern words mean. The meanings of words THEN are not the same. Heck, 1611 English is NOT the same so why should the meanings of Koine / LXX Greek and Hebrew words be similar enough to allow easy translation?

I'm not sure if you were talking to me, but assuming you were, that was my point. Yet people will still insist that translations are infallible, specifically the ones they are using.

And the KJV was written between the times the two Greek versions I quoted were written.

 

[Ohioprof]

All Baptist Churches are autonomous. They hire their own pastors through the deacons, congregational committees and membership vote. Most decisions that are made within involve the majority of membership's vote of yes or no. If the church chooses to allie itself with a doctrinal organizaton such as a convention or fellowship that organization can only excert control as far as the church will let it. The most the convention or fellowship can do if they do not like the goings on at a member church is kick the church out of the organization. It will however, remain a church, remain autonomous, and be self-governing.

Yes, that sounds right. The SBC was going to cut off funding to the Atlanta Baptist Convention because the ABC refused to kick the two Atlanta congregations that are welcoming to gay people out of the Atlanta Baptist Convention. I don't know if the SBC ever followed through with this threat.

 

[Ohioprof]

Just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to read a thread about this subject which has not become acrimonious and personal!

Yet. (LOL)

 

[Ohioprof]

The practice of homosexuality certainly existed. I see too many references referring to the practice, many using the term sodomite. The concordances and commentaries agree.

So two questions I have are:

***What was the practice of homosexuality called in "those days you say that the term did not exist."

***And how have the majority of Bibles, commentaries, knowledge books and dictionaries come up with similiar definitions explaining that the practice of homosexuality is a sin gotten it wrong in your opinion? Is it a conspiracy against homosexuals or what IYO?

(Afterthought: I wonder if anyone here has a copy of George Lamsa's Bible translation from Aramaic and what it says about our subject?)

People certainly had intimate relationships with people of the same sex, which has been true as long as humans existed. But people did not regard someone as a gay person or as a homosexual person, as we do now. The understanding that there are "homosexual" or a gay people is relatively new, dating back to just the 19th century. Prior to this, people were regarded as engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex, but there was not a wide recognition that there were people who were inherently oriented toward partners of the same sex.

There was certainly cultural variation in how people have regarded "homosexuality" over time. But the recognition that some people are simply oriented to be gay is a relatively modern recognition by the medical community and by researchers.