arsenokoités

[OllieFranz]

MrPirate - What you are asking of us is absurd. It's like asking me to prove what "cat" means without appealing to common usage, translators, authority, tradition etc...

Words aquire their meaning from usage. Pure and simple. The word "terrific" for example, should mean much the same as the word "horrific"... but it doesn't mean anything like that to the listener or the user of the word in general usage. The fact that the word "arsenokoites" has been received in this context to mean the same as the word "homosexual" from as early as we can ascertain is sufficient reason to accept the translation as accurate. I'm not particularly familiar with the evidence to the contrary. Are you able to demonstrate a time when the usage of the word within scripture was understood differently?

The question is not "What did the word mean to the translators of the KJV or the Russian translators 500 years ago?" Nor is it "What does the word mean to commentators who only know it in translation?"

The question is "What was Paul trying to say when he chose to use that word"? Or, alternatively,"What did Paul's original readers (the Church at Corinth, or Timothy) take to be Paul's meaning?"

The problem with the word "αρσενοκοιται" is that it does not seem to have existed before 1 Corinthians. And afterward it only appears in about six or eight documents. All of them are early Christian writings, and in all cases, they are part of lists of sins and/or sinners. And so there is no context, other than which sins they are grouped with, to help determine the meaning. That is why there is so much side discussion of the words that it is "paired" with in Pauls letters: "μαλακοι" and "πορνοι."

In two of the documents, the best indication is that the authors thought it referred to involvement in heterosexual prostitution, either as the "pimp," or as the "john." And this was native Greek speakers less than two hundred years after Paul first used the word.

Our best guess is that Paul was translating an already known list of sins from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. And, being a scholarly Pharisee, he knew that the Hebrew phrase "mishkav zakur" was used to refer to Leviticus 18:22 and violations of its ban. (Chapter-and-verse divisions did not yet exist.) So, instead of translating the concept behind the sin into Greek, he translated the phrase directly. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX uses the same words to translate the phrase in Leviticus 20:13: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"

But why did Paul choose to use a phrase that would not be familiar to the Greeks in Corinth? One assumption is that none of the Greek words or phrases available quite described just what the sin was, or why it was a sin. Another is that, since the sin was part of the Holiness Code, it does not apply to non-Jews.

The first assumption means that Paul felt that the Jewish and Greek understandings about the nature of the different acts and relationships did not match up. Either the act banned in Leviticus is too broad to match up with any of the Greek concepts, or it is too narrow.

The second assumption simply says that Leviticus 18:22 does not apply to those under Grace.

 

[Splayd]

Thanks OllieFranz,

That was a good post which was informative, well considered and well presented. Much appreciated.

MrPirate - I see little point discussing the matter with you at all. As I stated earlier, your request is too restrictive. For your next OP you might consider asking us to prove it without using words either. An all icon debate would be fun.

Peace

 

[BigBadWlf]

the translation of the word arsenokoités from 1 Corinthians is brought up a lot in these threads. When evidence is presented that the word does not translate as ‘homosexual’ many dismiss that evidence yet provide no corroborating evidence that arsenokoités actually does mean homosexual.
What is presented is at best:
An appeal to authority (someone else translated it to mean homosexual therefore I don’t have to look at the evidence that the translation is wrong)
An appeal to history (we’ve translated it that way for years, therefore it must be correct.
And at worst:
An appeal to wide spread belief (everyone KNOWS it means that, so no need to look at evidence I might not like)

And at the very very worst:
Flaming those posting the evidence (read any post for examples)
Flaming the historians, linguists, theologians and researchers (that person is the member of a minority…therefore he/she is biased and we can ignore anything they say.)


So instead of relying on flaming or fallacious arguments present some real evidence.

If you insist that arsenokoités means homosexual then show us some evidence to support that claim.

An interesting topic. I don’t recall any evidence ever being provided for the translation of this word to mean homosexual/homosexuality except for some attempts to define the word based on the contrived interpretations of the meanings of its root words. The root word fallacy is easily addressed however.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Thanks OllieFranz,

That was a good post which was informative, well considered and well presented. Much appreciated.

MrPirate - I see little point discussing the matter with you at all. As I stated earlier, your request is too restrictive. For your next OP you might consider asking us to prove it without using words either. An all icon debate would be fun.

Peace

I am failing to see your reason for the personal attacks.

It certainly is not unreasonable to ask those making claims to support their statements logically. If one is going to claim that a specific word means X and only X then one had best be prepared to support said claim.

In one sentence you praise OllieFranz for discussing the topic without and it is worth noting he did not resort to “fallacious argument” so obviously you complaint that the OP is “restrictive” does not hold up to even passing scrutiny.

It is interesting to note you are engaging in one of the standard (sub-standard?) responses the OP provides: specifically you are not addressing the topic rather you are engaging in a personal attack on the poster.

If you think that this ancient Greek word translates as homosexual, then engage in some research and provide support for your belief. If you are unwilling to engage in such research, fine, but do not attack the OP because of your unwillingness.

 

[Splayd]

I am failing to see your reason for the personal attacks.

I'm not attacking any person. I'm attacking the premise of the OP.

It certainly is not unreasonable to ask those making claims to support their statements logically. If one is going to claim that a specific word means X and only X then one had best be prepared to support said claim.

I agree. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with asking someone to do that without appealing to authority or history.

In one sentence you praise OllieFranz for discussing the topic without and it is worth noting he did not resort to “fallacious argument” so obviously you complaint that the OP is “restrictive” does not hold up to even passing scrutiny.

I enjoyed OllieFranz response and the respect with which it was written. Check again though. It did contain appeals to history and more specifically authority. Those were acknowledged as asssumptions. Noone can make any sort of case for any meaning for any word without appealing directly or indirectly to history and/or authority. It can't be done. Further - it's a condition that's only been asked to be applied for one case. The case against the translation isn't being asked to justify their position according to the same criteria. That's my problem. If someone's able to demonstrate that an alternative translation can be arrived at without appealing to authority and/or history, I'll concede the point.

 

[MrPirate]

The question is not "What did the word mean to the translators of the KJV or the Russian translators 500 years ago?" Nor is it "What does the word mean to commentators who only know it in translation?"

The question is "What was Paul trying to say when he chose to use that word"? Or, alternatively,"What did Paul's original readers (the Church at Corinth, or Timothy) take to be Paul's meaning?"

The problem with the word "αρσενοκοιται" is that it does not seem to have existed before 1 Corinthians. And afterward it only appears in about six or eight documents. All of them are early Christian writings, and in all cases, they are part of lists of sins and/or sinners. And so there is no context, other than which sins they are grouped with, to help determine the meaning. That is why there is so much side discussion of the words that it is "paired" with in Pauls letters: "μαλακοι" and "πορνοι."

In two of the documents, the best indication is that the authors thought it referred to involvement in heterosexual prostitution, either as the "pimp," or as the "john." And this was native Greek speakers less than two hundred years after Paul first used the word.

Our best guess is that Paul was translating an already known list of sins from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. And, being a scholarly Pharisee, he knew that the Hebrew phrase "mishkav zakur" was used to refer to Leviticus 18:22 and violations of its ban. (Chapter-and-verse divisions did not yet exist.) So, instead of translating the concept behind the sin into Greek, he translated the phrase directly. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX uses the same words to translate the phrase in Leviticus 20:13: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"

But why did Paul choose to use a phrase that would not be familiar to the Greeks in Corinth? One assumption is that none of the Greek words or phrases available quite described just what the sin was, or why it was a sin. Another is that, since the sin was part of the Holiness Code, it does not apply to non-Jews.

The first assumption means that Paul felt that the Jewish and Greek understandings about the nature of the different acts and relationships did not match up. Either the act banned in Leviticus is too broad to match up with any of the Greek concepts, or it is too narrow.

The second assumption simply says that Leviticus 18:22 does not apply to those under Grace.

Great Post!

 

[MrPirate]

I'm not attacking any person. I'm attacking the premise of the OP.

I agree. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with asking someone to do that without appealing to authority or history.

Why do feel you need to use fallacious arguments?

I enjoyed OllieFranz response and the respect with which it was written. Check again though. It did contain appeals to history and more specifically authority. Those were acknowledged as asssumptions. Noone can make any sort of case for any meaning for any word without appealing directly or indirectly to history and/or authority. It can't be done. Further - it's a condition that's only been asked to be applied for one case. The case against the translation isn't being asked to justify their position according to the same criteria. That's my problem. If someone's able to demonstrate that an alternative translation can be arrived at without appealing to authority and/or history, I'll concede the point.

Been done multiple times in these threads.

and you minght want to look up just what an appeal ot history is

What has not been provided is equivalent evidence the translation is homosexual. Those who claim that it is announce that this is the only translation because that is how some anonymous translator has done it for years. which is not evidence of anything.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm not attacking any person. I'm attacking the premise of the OP.

“MrPirate - I see little point discussing the matter with you at all.”
No….that is personal

I agree. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with asking someone to do that without appealing to authority or history.

I enjoyed OllieFranz response and the respect with which it was written. Check again though. It did contain appeals to history and more specifically authority. Those were acknowledged as asssumptions. Noone can make any sort of case for any meaning for any word without appealing directly or indirectly to history and/or authority. It can't be done. Further - it's a condition that's only been asked to be applied for one case. The case against the translation isn't being asked to justify their position according to the same criteria. That's my problem. If someone's able to demonstrate that an alternative translation can be arrived at without appealing to authority and/or history, I'll concede the point.

You seem to be confusing an appeal to authority, a claim in this instance that the translation of this particular Greek word into ‘homosexual’ is correct because person X said so. and the use of evidence and analysis of experts in the field (properly citing them and their work of course)


By the same token I think you are confusing the use of historical documents - an example in this instance might be the use of this particular word and the meaning(s) applied to that word at the time of the writings of Paul and an appeal to history which is the claim that because this word was translated as ‘homosexual’ a century ago or 500 years ago by the Russian Orthodox Church than it must mean homosexual.

Neither appeals to authority or appeals to history verify the information or in this case substantiate the translation.

 

[Splayd]

Been done multiple times in these threads.

So you keep telling me, but we're not in the other threads, we're in this one. Perhaps you could provide a link to a thread where it was done without appealing to history or authority. As it is you're not actually offering anything.

 

[Splayd]

The problem with the word "αρσενοκοιται" is that it does not seem to have existed before 1 Corinthians. And afterward it only appears in about six or eight documents.

snips

This is borne out by the fact that the LXX uses the same words to translate the phrase in Leviticus 20:13: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"

Just double checking your statements here. The word used in 1 Corinthians is the same word used in Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint? If so wouldn't that mean it was being used for at least the second time in 1 Corinthians? Wouldn't the obvious reasoning then be that Paul was using the word to mean the same thing it was already (and apparently only) being used for at the time of his writing it?

 

[BigBadWlf]

snips
Just double checking your statements here. The word used in 1 Corinthians is the same word used in Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint? If so wouldn't that mean it was being used for at least the second time in 1 Corinthians? Wouldn't the obvious reasoning then be that Paul was using the word to mean the same thing it was already (and apparently only) being used for at the time of his writing it?

I would doubt it is the same word as it is after all two separate languages being used.

If it were the case then it would counter any claim that it means ‘homosexual’ as this same word pair is used at various points to describe heterosexual actions, Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 20:12 specifically

 

[Splayd]

I've only just started to examine that claim, so I'm happy to be corrected. I really don't know much about the LXX, but if it's true that the word appears there it's hugely significant.

I would doubt it is the same word as it is after all two separate languages being used.

The LXX and the NT are both written in Greek. I'm not sure I understand your point. It's true that the LXX is a translation from Hebrew but that's even more significant. It gives us a definite point of reference for the first instance of the word's use if true.

If it were the case then it would counter any claim that it means ‘homosexual’ as this same word pair is used at various points to describe heterosexual actions, Leviticus 20:11 and Leviticus 20:12 specifically

I wouldn't think so. I don't have a copy of the LXX so I can't check. If anyone can confirm or deny this I'd appreciate it... but I'd suspect the word pairing being utitlised in Leviticus 20:13 is shakab zakar (ie: sex with males) while the Leviticus 20:11 and 20:12 came from the Hebrew shakab ab ishshah nashiym (ie: sex with father's wife) and shakab kallah (ie: sex with son's wife).

Being a translation I'd suspect that the LXX actually used sufficient Greek equivalents for Leviticus 20:11 and Lev 20:12, while it utilised this new term for Leviticus 20:12 meaning for it to be understood as the same Hebrew phrase it was translating - ie: sex with males.

Is anyone able to confirm or deny as much? I'm just working with what came from OllieFranz post at the moment.

 

[davedjy]

No so far the response has been, you got nothing. And the liberal has the burden of proof in this situation since the tradition understanding for arsenokoités has been in place for 2000 years.

Based upon history of the word, and " early tradition" you lose. At the time of Martin Luther, it was universally translated as those who touch:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm


It might help you to do actual research on the word, before making false statements.

 

[Zaac]

How many other bible verses are depended upon to justify discrimination against an entire minority? This word is used to justify hate and discrimination….is that not reason enough to examine it?

Even if that were not the case you are saying that truth doesn’t matter and it is wrong to look for the truth when it conflicts with your personal viewpoints.

You're confused. It is not a word that condemns this sin. It is not a word that justifies hate or discrimination.

THE WORD condemns the sin, and all Christians are right to show just as much hate and discrimination against this sin as God shows against all of our other sins.

You're not looking for the Truth. The Truth has been given. You just want the truth to be something else so you've hatched up all of these studies.

You struggle with this because at your core you know it's not the truth. You hang on the use of these words because it gives you hope to be happy the way you want to be and with whom you want to be happy.

That's understandable. There's something in all of us created by sin putting a hole in us that makes us desire LOVE from another.

For whatever reason, some folks want that from people of the same sex. I'm sure it creates a pull that is sometimes unbearable because you really can't see what the big deal is and why some Christians preach against these acts that you and others feel are the natural byproduct of love.

There's no other answer except because God says so.

As a human being, there's a lot of stuff that I wish was another way because to my pitiful limited mind, it would just work better or give me what I think I need.

But as a Christian, I must have faith that GOD knows all things and in His omniscience, He knows what's best for me and everyone else. And even though we may not understand some things, out of reverence for Him as GOD, we must live in obedience.

We must be willing and able to lay EVERYTHING down to follow Him.

And there lies the crux. Is the person who wants to commit homosexual sex acts willing to lay that desire, as strong as it may be, aside in order to live a life in obedience to Christ, or will he choose to make the decision that leaves him with no witness?

 

[BigBadWlf]

I've only just started to examine that claim, so I'm happy to be corrected. I really don't know much about the LXX, but if it's true that the word appears there it's hugely significant. The LXX and the NT are both written in Greek. I'm not sure I understand your point. It's true that the LXX is a translation from Hebrew but that's even more significant. It gives us a definite point of reference for the first instance of the word's use if true.

I wouldn't think so. I don't have a copy of the LXX so I can't check. If anyone can confirm or deny this I'd appreciate it... but I'd suspect the word pairing being utitlised in Leviticus 20:13 is shakab zakar (ie: sex with males) while the Leviticus 20:11 and 20:12 came from the Hebrew shakab ab ishshah nashiym (ie: sex with father's wife) and shakab kallah (ie: sex with son's wife).

Being a translation I'd suspect that the LXX actually used sufficient Greek equivalents for Leviticus 20:11 and Lev 20:12, while it utilised this new term for Leviticus 20:12 meaning for it to be understood as the same Hebrew phrase it was translating - ie: sex with males.

Is anyone able to confirm or deny as much? I'm just working with what came from OllieFranz post at the moment.

If something is a translation then why would it be using the words from the original language.
Are you suggesting ancient Greek did not have words meaning man/male or bed?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Based upon history of the word, and " early tradition" you lose. At the time of Martin Luther, it was universally translated as those who touch:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Very interesting information.

Thank you for posting that.

 

[Zaac]

Very interesting information.

Thank you for posting that.

That site is almost laughable. Yall continue this vain attempt to discredit what God's Word clearly says about committing homosexual fornication with someone else's work in which they say

we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey.

The article starts off

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

All of these appears and perhps and you guys use this as a credible source to "enlighten" others about the meaning of the word?

 

[Brieuse]

That site is almost laughable. Yall continue this vain attempt to discredit what God's Word clearly says about committing homosexual fornication with someone else's work in which they say

The article starts off

All of these appears and perhps and you guys use this as a credible source to "enlighten" others about the meaning of the word?

You got something better perhaps?

Anybody with 2 brain cells can see that Satan's work prevails in the condemning of people because of their sexual preference.

 

[Brieuse]

Very interesting information.

Thank you for posting that.

So which is it then? Masturbation or Homosexuals?

I wish the narrow minded Christians would make their minds up.

 

[BigBadWlf]

You're confused. It is not a word that condemns this sin. It is not a word that justifies hate or discrimination.

It would seem you are incorrect

THE WORD condemns the sin, and all Christians are right to show just as much hate and discrimination against this sin as God shows against all of our other sins.

Once could pull out a laundry list of ‘sins’ listed in scripture, activities that are not considered sin by today’s standards. What are we to make of those and the lack of hatred directed at those who say sport tattoos or shave their beards or farmers?


(what about a clean shaven farmer with a tattoo?)

You're not looking for the Truth. The Truth has been given. You just want the truth to be something else so you've hatched up all of these studies.

It would be just as easy to suggest you do not wish to have anything to do with the truth and that is why you are ignoring all the studies that provide insights into translations you would rather not have anyone know about.
I think it would be rather much better to direct your attention to the OP and note how you are not addressing the topic but rather flaming both he poster and the many researchers involved in the study of history, etiology and theology. Such attacks do nothing but damage your reputation and diminish whatever merit your position might hold.

You struggle with this because at your core you know it's not the truth. You hang on the use of these words because it gives you hope to be happy the way you want to be and with whom you want to be happy.

That's understandable. There's something in all of us created by sin putting a hole in us that makes us desire LOVE from another.

For whatever reason, some folks want that from people of the same sex. I'm sure it creates a pull that is sometimes unbearable because you really can't see what the big deal is and why some Christians preach against these acts that you and others feel are the natural byproduct of love.

In another thread it was asked why an assumption about sexual orientation was being made. It must be noted that heterosexuals also oppose anti-gay discrimination just as whites can and do oppose racism.

There's no other answer except because God says so.

You are correct “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32 the truth is that there is good reason to believe that arsenokoites does not mean homosexual.

As a human being, there's a lot of stuff that I wish was another way because to my pitiful limited mind, it would just work better or give me what I think I need.

Apparently you wish the evidence for this translation would conform to your will. But it does not.

But as a Christian, I must have faith that GOD knows all things and in His omniscience, He knows what's best for me and everyone else. And even though we may not understand some things, out of reverence for Him as GOD, we must live in obedience.

We must be willing and able to lay EVERYTHING down to follow Him.

Are you willing to lay this possibly incorrect translation aside? You seem fighting very hard to keep it and fighting very hard to ignore and dismiss evidence that you do not like.

And there lies the crux. Is the person who wants to commit homosexual sex acts willing to lay that desire, as strong as it may be, aside in order to live a life in obedience to Christ, or will he choose to make the decision that leaves him with no witness?

And that is the crux. If, as the evidence is showing, the translation is wrong, then the position you are making is without merit.

We are back to your first claim in your post. discrimination is dependant upon a single word